An open invitation

outdoor338 wrote: Certain liberals have been invited and most will not respond to the public invitation, these liberals don't want to be seen as traitors by attending a tea party meeting. Heck, wear a brown paper bag over your head if your embarrased to be seen as a liberal democrat at a tea party meeting. So wayne, if your voting for Tom T, then we can expect to see you when Tom T is at Beaver Ranch, correct?

Grady was very kind to extend a private invitation to me, and I partly explained to him why I wouldn't/couldn't attend, as such I saw no need to respond to public announcements of meetings. Aside from it being very difficult for me to make it to Bailey from Lakewood on a week night, with two young children to get in bed on time for school, I have several issues with common stances by most Tea Party members that haven't changed my decision to not support their platform and endorsed candidates. The most important I elucidated in a previous thread and re-posted below. If this stance were to change, along with a clear plan for reducing government without creating additional hardships/problems, I would give it another thought.

I don't know of any other political meetings, and don't care to attend them anyway for any side.

Whatevergreen wrote: it’s the questions outlining the group’s priorities that provide a hearty serving of insight:

Now let’s hear those 15 questions.
2. The regulation of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere should be left to God and not government and I oppose all measures of Cap and Trade as well as the teaching of global warming theory in our schools.

This right here is my biggest problem with the Tea Party. It's all well and good to want a smaller, more efficient, non-corrupt government that provides for us without interfering in our personal lives, but when they're unwilling to listen to, and try to understand, and to accept what thousands of scientists who have been studying this issue are telling them, and it's a problem that will require an international scale, government-led solution to mitigate it, then they are not qualified to lead a government for which I will vote and support. The excess of CO2 in our atmosphere hasn't been put there by God, it's been put there by Man, and as such should be extracted by Man. Cap and Trade is the most useless, inefficient, corporate friendly, loophole-ridden means with which to solve global warming, but as it's the only one that's been discussed, I'd guess that they'd oppose fee and dividend or any other measure as well without giving rational thought as to why. If they're going to oppose the teachings of global warming, then they might as well oppose the teachings of all science. And while they are at it, avoid anything science created - all technology, antibiotics, vaccines, diagnostic tests, chemotherapy, pain killers, any life-saving surgeries, etc. No, I am not saying to blindly accept everything scientific out there, but there comes a time when, after 40+ years of saying the same thing, and a 97% consensus by the specialty most qualified to study it, that it's time to stop arguing and get moving on the solution. The Democrats have been no better than any other party in moving forward on this issue which was a big reason why I left the party. But it's a documented fact that Republicans and Tea Party members are the even more opposed to science as a whole, and global warming, especially, and they will not get any consideration from me unless it's a specific candidate that breaks with party line or the parties as a whole stop catering to industry and corporate interests that push agendas detrimental to our health and livelihoods.

Heartless, I know that the local Tea party hasn't taken a stand or tried to sway voters as how to vote, perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough on that point - that I'm not trying to compartmentalize our local group into expectations of national groups. But based on comments on local community forums by those who do identify with our local group, it's not a huge stretch to say that most do not support AGW, or government attempts to mitigate it (and I've specifically qualified that cap and trade is NOT the way to to go, both above and in several previous threads).

Your link isn't working so I can't check to confirm, but it sounds like, from your statement, a case of local station reporting. Local temps cannot be extrapolated directly to global changes, and if the station has moved recently then current temperatures can't necessarily be compared directly to old temperatures. Local temperatures changes will be more dramatic, due to local and seasonal variability, than the averaged global surface temperatures that are calculated from thousands of land recording stations, ocean temps, and satellite measurements. Here's some background info on the surface temperature records:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... re-record/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... at-island/

For a more comprehensive explanation to reduce misinformation on AGW:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... im-hansen/

HEARTLESS wrote: Here is another thought. With responsible spending, direct some federal, state and maybe local tax dollars to research of above. Then provided tax deductions or some benefit to those that choose to buy solar, hybrids, etc. One method is mandated (crap and tax) vs the other provides incentives while allowing choice.

Already in progress, unless you mean they should add more $$! So, what you seem to be saying is that you want control over how you reduce your carbon footprint vs the gov't telling you how to do it. I agree that people will be more effective if they feel they are doing it of their own free will; however, as I've mentioned before, most people don't have a thorough understanding of how to effectively and efficiently go about reducing their energy usage and carbon use. Increased education will help with that, but it's not going to be enough to get us to the reduced levels needed without government intervention, and we'll have to agree to disagree here.