to stop destroying the planet and we succeed then they will say see it WAS a hoax".

That would still be a good outcome. They're going to blather away whatever happens so we might as well try to save the world anyway.

I guess what would worry me is that the next time they are about to destroy the planet they will use it as a reason not to believe the scientist. I don't know if you have ever heard them say this, but I have heard some say the Ozone Layer Crisis was fake because the Ozone Layer is fine today. Yes, because we eliminated CFCs but they forget that.

would mean changes would have to be made to their current lifestyle = bad

complete denial will remain in USA

They will be dying from the effects and shaking their heads that it has nothing to do with mankind!

"God's will " more likely that crowd's chant if any change is ever admitted

get rich from the disaster.
Won't matter to many of them as it will just be taken as a sign that their invisible cloud being will soon asend them into heaven.
As reward for their service to god and country no doubt.

Rush once said ... "The Earth will survive whatever we humans do to it."

I agree with that ... Yes, the Earth will survive whatever we humans can do to it. The question really is, can we humans survive what we do to the Earth?

Unless we somehow manage to send the Earth into the Sun, the "Earth" will survive. It may be a radioactive, waterless, lifeless rock spinning around the Sun, but it will still be there. We (the Human Species) just won't be able to live on it, if we're still around. Kind like Mercury and Venus have survived ...

Anyone who has ever used the term Destroy the Earth as a results of climate change are talking about the life, not the physical planet. Are the Republicans really playing with semantics?

a lie.

on Kyoto. 98-0 against ratification, because the biggest polluters would have to sacrifice the most in the adjustment of industry, economy and lifestyle.

Since that vote, beyond noise, the democrats have failed to make climate change an issue in the political discourse. Use this years contest as an example. With all this extreme weather in many different forms, is anyone giving a history lesson about the party that has impeded the national and global discourse, impeded efforts at legislation, impeded the formation of policy, impeded efforts of the EPA and environmental regulation.

The democrats fault is illustrated in allowing it to be a non issue, allowing the false statements to stand, not allowing it to be a central issue of the party platform; and not creating a real choice to the status quo.

One can only hope this changes at the party convention, that it becomes a central issue of the platform and campaign, that it becomes an October surprise that unmasks the ignorance of every candidate for the House, Senate, and Presidency; that dares to have an R by their name on the ballot.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride; I'll not hold my breath, and I will maintain the conditioning and composure, to walk. However, I will not pretend there is much difference in party affiliation, until the issue is forced front and center in the public discourse by the party that pretends to be concerned while the planet races toward the tipping point.

Enough said, sorry for the rant.

However, I don't hear Democrats making speeches from the house and senate floor calling climate change a hoax. I don't hear the Democrat talking heads make claims as George Will said this morning that it is summer of course it is hot.
Democrats are not leading us forward, but the Republicans are moving us backwards.
I went back and reread my OP to make sure I did not misspeak. I did not say Democrats were doing what they need to do. I was referring to those who won't even accept there is a real problem, and I felt I made that clear. If I didn't I was only speaking of the deniers.

Nor are they even whimpering from the steps of the Capitol, that humanity has a very bleak future because of political inaction and suppression of discourse. What does it matter if you don't accept there is a problem, or you just refuse to act on a problem you know is real.

98-0 is a whole bunch of non belief and inaction, and both add up to disaster.

Well, as far as really solving the problem you are right. On that you and I are in complete agreement. However, when anyone states it is a hoax and they happen to be an elected official it give fuel to the hoax message, when the George Wills make claims as he did this morning it adds even more.

I hear people quite often use as there proof that climate change is because someone from the floor said it was a hoax. These are people who don't understand the science they just have a notable person to quote.

As an example on a difference subject. Two scenarios;
1. I am gay, but lets say I am not an activist. I don't really support the movement to gain the right to gay marriage other than saying it should happen, I don't march, I don't donate, but I don't go around saying we shouldn't have the right to marry. I am not helping the movement but I am not hurting the movement. I am passive.

2. I am gay, but I don't feel gays should be allowed to get married, I donate money, I march, I do all I can to prevent gay from getting the right to marry. I am obstructive.

Neither are honorable positions but at least one isn't dragging the movement backwards. That was and is my point.


By the way, just so no one misunderstands. I am gay, and I do support gay marriage in an active way. Those were just examples.

The vote (95-0, not 98-0) for the non-binding resolution to which you refer, was taken in the summer BEFORE the Kyoto conference.

For losing.

I'll just join in the frustration I guess

climate change predicts "unusual" weather and, although we have already seen record temps, I think the second a denier encounters a weather phenomenon that can't be attributed to seasonal patterns, something that just goes totally against our knowledge and historic memory of Earth's climate behavior, then they will finally start to question themselves. But they have to see something weather wise that they never expected to see and totally freaks them out. An unusually hot month is not going to do it because, within the realm of weather, that is still something that has been seen before. They have to see something that has never been seen before, something like a miracle. Something like three feet of snow in the sahara or a 120degree day in new england. Something that makes them say "Okay, now that's not normal."

In central Ohio. Pretty freaky.

They will start to admit that it (climate change) is real BUT:

1. They will say it is not man-made

2. They will say it is too late and too costly to do anything about it.

3. They will say "technology" can fix the problem.

I know I know but those are a survey of the positions that they will be (and are) taking.