Majority of Republicans believe climate change is real and affected by human activity

A majority of Republican voters—including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans—believe climate change is real and humans play some role, according to a new survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.

“The results echo a number of other recent surveys concluding that despite the talk of many of the party’s candidates, a significant number of Republicans and independent voters are inclined to support candidates who would back some form of climate action,” reports The New York Times.

The New York Times wrote:WASHINGTON, April 14— The top executives of the seven largest American tobacco companies testified in Congress today that they did not believe that cigarettes were addictive, but that they would rather their own children did not smoke.

The executives, sitting side by side at a conference table in what seemed to many a counterpoint to the growing antismoking sentiment in Congress, faced more than six hours of sharp questioning by members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.

Under persistent questioning, each of the executives agreed to give Congress extensive, previously unpublicized research on humans and animals that their companies had done concerning nicotine and addiction.

Democratic Congressmen on the panel, inspired by recent news reports, pressed the executives on whether their companies manipulated the content of nicotine to keep smokers addicted to cigarettes. The executives acknowledged that nicotine levels could be and were controlled by altering the blends of tobacco, but they said this was done to enhance flavor, not to insure addiction.

The executives also made a number of other notable admissions, including these:

*Cigarettes may cause lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems, but the evidence is not conclusive.

*Despite earlier denials, a Philip Morris study that suggested that animals could become addicted to nicotine was suppressed in 1983 and 1985.

The hearing was televised live by the Cable News Network and C-Span cable channels, as an overflow crowd stood or sat in the hallways of the Rayburn House Office Building for what several members of Congress said marked a high tide of anti smoking sentiment.

The executives seemed to agree, saying that they felt besieged and that the sweep of antitobacco fervor in recent months had led them to fear that the Government would try to ban cigarettes.

smelly-bandit wrote:there is no such thing as global warming quill

after we all had really low temperatures and snowy winters the fanatics did a brand change and changed their religion to "climate change"

global warming is so last decade mate.

smelly wrote:is there anything at all humans can do to stop climate change??

Nat. Resources Def. Counsel wrote:Since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has protected public health by setting and enforcing standards to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.

But there is more to do. Many older power plants and industrial facilities enjoy loopholes that allow them to pollute at much higher levels than their cleaner counterparts. To protect public health from these dirty plants, we need the EPA to set standards that level the playing field by requiring all plants to meet the same cleaner standards. And since Congress failed to pass legislation to address global warming pollution, that job falls to the EPA.

However, polluters and some business organizations are pressuring members of Congress to stop the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health by rolling back existing public health laws like the Clean Air Act and blocking needed clean air and clean water protections.

Some key public health standards now under attack:

Standards to Reduce Toxic Power Plant Air Pollution
Establishing standards to reduce toxic pollution from the thousands of power plants nationwide could save as many as 17,000 lives a year, prevent respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and reduce the exposure of children to mercury and lead.

Health Standards for Smog (Ground-Level Ozone)
We could save up to 12,000 lives per year and prevent tens of thousands of cases of respiratory and heart disease by tightening national smog pollution standards.

Standards to Reduce Toxic Industrial Air Pollution
We could save approximately 5,000 lives per year and prevent thousands of cases of respiratory and heart disease by reducing toxic air pollution from industrial plants.

Reducing Global Warming From Cars and Light Trucks
Improving emissions performance in cars and light trucks would reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution that causes global warming while saving consumers billions of dollars and cutting oil use.

Reducing Global Warming From Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks
The first-ever standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions and improve fuel efficiency in medium- and heavy-duty trucks would reduce global warming pollution, save 500 million barrels of oil over the lifetimes of the trucks sold during model years 2014 to 2018 and save truck operators $49 billion over the life of the vehicles.

Reducing Global Warming From Power Plants
Instituting standards to reduce global warming pollution from power plants would help reduce the pollution that is increasing deaths and illnesses from heat waves, air pollution, infectious diseases, and severe weather events.

Despite the EPA and the Clean Air Act’s success, the job isn’t finished. Air pollution continues to be a health problem, with many types of pollution and sources of pollution left unaddressed because of loopholes or political pressure or delays. But polluters and other special interests are once again asking Congress to put profits before public health.

Congress should let EPA do its job in order to ensure healthy air for all Americans.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly wrote:is there anything at all humans can do to stop climate change??

Nat. Resources Def. Counsel wrote:Since 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has protected public health by setting and enforcing standards to protect the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink.

But there is more to do. Many older power plants and industrial facilities enjoy loopholes that allow them to pollute at much higher levels than their cleaner counterparts. To protect public health from these dirty plants, we need the EPA to set standards that level the playing field by requiring all plants to meet the same cleaner standards. And since Congress failed to pass legislation to address global warming pollution, that job falls to the EPA.

However, polluters and some business organizations are pressuring members of Congress to stop the EPA from doing its job of protecting public health by rolling back existing public health laws like the Clean Air Act and blocking needed clean air and clean water protections.

Some key public health standards now under attack:

Standards to Reduce Toxic Power Plant Air Pollution
Establishing standards to reduce toxic pollution from the thousands of power plants nationwide could save as many as 17,000 lives a year, prevent respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and reduce the exposure of children to mercury and lead.

Health Standards for Smog (Ground-Level Ozone)
We could save up to 12,000 lives per year and prevent tens of thousands of cases of respiratory and heart disease by tightening national smog pollution standards.

Standards to Reduce Toxic Industrial Air Pollution
We could save approximately 5,000 lives per year and prevent thousands of cases of respiratory and heart disease by reducing toxic air pollution from industrial plants.

Reducing Global Warming From Cars and Light Trucks
Improving emissions performance in cars and light trucks would reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution that causes global warming while saving consumers billions of dollars and cutting oil use.

Reducing Global Warming From Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks
The first-ever standards to cut carbon dioxide emissions and improve fuel efficiency in medium- and heavy-duty trucks would reduce global warming pollution, save 500 million barrels of oil over the lifetimes of the trucks sold during model years 2014 to 2018 and save truck operators $49 billion over the life of the vehicles.

Reducing Global Warming From Power Plants
Instituting standards to reduce global warming pollution from power plants would help reduce the pollution that is increasing deaths and illnesses from heat waves, air pollution, infectious diseases, and severe weather events.

Despite the EPA and the Clean Air Act’s success, the job isn’t finished. Air pollution continues to be a health problem, with many types of pollution and sources of pollution left unaddressed because of loopholes or political pressure or delays. But polluters and other special interests are once again asking Congress to put profits before public health.

Congress should let EPA do its job in order to ensure healthy air for all Americans.

It's fact.

smelly-bandit wrote:walter likes em young??

well he did have some strange ideas on the peadophile thread

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:walter likes em young??

well he did have some strange ideas on the peadophile thread

It' was your post, ducky.

Don't get cheap on us.  

nicko wrote:My opinion  [for what it's worth]

there is climate change.

nothing to do with us.

the climate has changed hundreds of times over millions of years.

sometimes hot, sometimes cold.

it did this when no people were around.

millions of years ago the British Isles was a steaming jungle.

I did not have a Range Rover then!!

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

smelly-bandit wrote:has climate changed happened before??

yes

did the wolrd have oil drilling and the level of indursty we have today??

no

if we all went to live in caves would it stop climate change??

no

if we all carried on buring coal and wood, would it stop climate change??

no

if we all went made and started sacrificing virgins to the climate change gods will they stop climate change??

no

is there anything at all humans can do to stop climate change??

no

nicko wrote:My opinion  [for what it's worth]

there is climate change.

nothing to do with us.

the climate has changed hundreds of times over millions of years.

sometimes hot, sometimes cold.

it did this when no people were around.

millions of years ago the British Isles was a steaming jungle.

I did not have a Range Rover then!!

veya_victaous wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:has climate changed happened before??

yes

did the wolrd have oil drilling and the level of indursty we have today??

no

if we all went to live in caves would it stop climate change??

no

if we all carried on buring coal and wood, would it stop climate change??

no

if we all went made and started sacrificing virgins to the climate change gods will they stop climate change??

no

is there anything at all humans can do to stop climate change??

no

YES there is stuff we can do to minimize climate change

IF we STOP using oil and coal it will Reduce the continued Global Warming THE REASON people changed to climate change is because people like you are too dumb to understand that global warming doesn't mean the air in between you ears. 

it is about ocean temperatures, As ocean covers about 70% of the planet.


The reason it is humans is apparent when you consider the other events where there is as much carbon deposited in the ice core records that date back 800,000 years is when there is major volcanic activity and it does cause minor extinction events. there is not major volcanic activity now it is just us burning shit from out of the ground (not unlike volcanic activity)

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:My opinion  [for what it's worth]

there is climate change.

nothing to do with us.

the climate has changed hundreds of times over millions of years.

sometimes hot, sometimes cold.

it did this when no people were around.

millions of years ago the British Isles was a steaming jungle.

I did not have a Range Rover then!!

Actually Britain didn't exist it is a relativity young island the approximation of Europe/Asia was further south

Cuchulain wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:there is no such thing as global warming quill

after we all had really low temperatures and snowy winters the fanatics did a brand change and changed their religion to "climate change"

global warming is so last decade mate.

nicko wrote:Fuck it,   shot down again!!

veya_victaous wrote:@Smelly
no we move to solar and other renewable energies, we work to make efficiency more important than profit for share holders.

and you don't understand time scale do you
tectonic plates ARE moving just very very slowly, if they were to move enough for us to notice in a generation than we either did something or major catastrophic shit is about to go down.

smelly-bandit wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@Smelly
no we move to solar and other renewable energies, we work to make efficiency more important than profit for share holders.

and you don't understand time scale do you
tectonic plates ARE moving just very very slowly, if they were to move enough for us to notice in a generation than we either did something or major catastrophic shit is about to go down.

i see you are still using electricity by using your computer and therefore contributing to the myth of man mad global climate change warming

good thing its a myth

you obvioulsy dont belive in climate change or else you would already be living in your cave veya

the funniest thing about you climate change religious fanatics is that you actually think that man can control the earths climate

smelly-bandit wrote:i propose a solution to the argument and one that could push us onto the path of salvation or lets us at least enjoy ourseleves on the path of destruction

lets round up all the global-climate-warming-change religious fanatics

shoot them all in the head

what this will achieve is:

A - millions of people will no longer be contributing towards global-climate-warming-change which will reduce our "carbon footprint" makes me lol! everytime i hear it.

B- it will give the sane and rational people a chance to study the effects of a reduced carbon footprint lol! makes me lol! everytime i hear it.

and then we can sit and have a rational, reasonable and civilised debate on the findings.

if it is found that reducing our carbon footprint, makes me lol! everytime i hear it, has a positive affect on the climate, then we erect a monument to the brave sacrifice of the global-climate-warming-change religious fanatics
and we commit our resources to finding a better way

if it is found - no change, we mark it down as a lesson learned and a tragedy avoided and get the BBQ lit

so quill, are you ready to volunteer??

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:i propose a solution to the argument and one that could push us onto the path of salvation or lets us at least enjoy ourseleves on the path of destruction

lets round up all the global-climate-warming-change religious fanatics

shoot them all in the head

what this will achieve is:

A - millions of people will no longer be contributing towards global-climate-warming-change which will reduce our "carbon footprint" makes me  lol! everytime i hear it.

B- it will give the sane and rational people a chance to study the effects of a reduced carbon footprint lol!   makes me  lol! everytime i hear it.

and then we can sit and have a rational, reasonable and civilised debate on the findings.

if it is found that reducing our carbon footprint, makes me  lol! everytime i hear it, has a positive affect on the climate, then we erect a monument to the brave sacrifice of the global-climate-warming-change religious fanatics
and we commit our resources to finding a better way

if it is found - no change, we mark it down as a lesson learned and a tragedy avoided and get the BBQ lit

so quill, are you ready to volunteer??

Sounds like a fools mission.

Much better would be to turn man's rational faculties to the problem, and devise ways to make it more cleaner energy, and more efficient lifestyles.

Your way gains the same result as worldwide pollution and inevitable climate change...only with just letting things go on as they are, you save money on the bullets.

As an aside: it's interesting confirmation that, once again, a conservative has no answer.  And, once again, a conservative wants to dither, while progressives get things done.  And, once again, a conservative is shooing away the little people.  And "erect a monument" reminds me that, once again, a conservative cares more about the jingle, than the substance.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Come at me, bitch!

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sounds like a fools mission.

Much better would be to turn man's rational faculties to the problem, and devise ways to make it more cleaner energy, and more efficient lifestyles.

Your way gains the same result as worldwide pollution and inevitable climate change...only with just letting things go on as they are, you save money on the bullets.

As an aside: it's interesting confirmation that, once again, a conservative has no answer.  And, once again, a conservative wants to dither, while progressives get things done.  And, once again, a conservative is shooing away the little people.  And "erect a monument" reminds me that, once again, a conservative cares more about the jingle, than the substance.

what problem??

smelly-bandit wrote:as it stands globalclimatechangewarming is just another religion, or just another unproven theory

until we test the basis of the solution to the theoritcal problem all it is, is unsubstantiated conjecture.

we need a litmus test

we need to reduce a significant amount of carbon footprint things or whatever bizzare units you zealots have come up with to measure globalclimatechangewarming, in order to measure its effects on the earths climate.

and it needs to be done over decades, you lot seem to think the sky is in the process of falling and thats its going to land on us all tomorrow, and that somehow humans can stop it by living in caves.

what you fanatics are proposing is to rush headlong into an irreversible course of action to implement an untested theoritical solution to an unproven theoritical problem that may or may not have any effect - positive or negative.

you maniacs dont have the first clue about the consequences of your "solution" which will force humankind into a retrograding technological dark age from which it will never emerge.