Republicans And The Environment

[CrossCuT]

 actually READ MY POST 

 

You need to find a new phrase to use on a regular basis. 

[PhuturePriest]

its not that i don't believe in climate change, something is defiantly going on.  its the assumption that climate change is man-made that i find hard to believe. 

I.E.:

Volcanic Ash, solar spots and other natural phenomena have a far greater effect on climate that human beings.

the industrial age of one hundred years ago was far far far more disruptive to the environment and and the world climate  did fine.

 

Isn't it possible that part of the reason we are in this mess is partly because of all the industrialization a hundred years ago? The earth is very large, so it doesn't get destroyed or disrupted within a day; it takes time for things to take their full effect.

[PhuturePriest]

Subway is the greatest restaurant EVER!!!

 

I couldn't agree more.

[CrossCuT]

I do enjoy Subway! :)

 

Although the other day I was watching a basketball stream from the UK (random) and their subway footlongs were 3£. It just doesnt have the same ring to it as "$5 footlong!"

[NotreDame]

You need to find a new phrase to use on a regular basis. 

 

I can just make it my .signature and put it in every post.

[CrossCuT]

I can just make it my .signature and put it in every post.

 

Hahaha! touche

[KnightofChrist]

I would just like to point out that because one denies or is skeptical of 'Global Warming', doesn't not mean necessarily that the person is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment. I don't know anyone that would call themselves Republican or identify with any similar group who is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment.

 

I myself am very much an advocate for a clean environment, but I am highly skeptical of 'Global Warming'. I use to believe, but due to many of the false prophets of that movement, who've predicted many various types of 'the sky is falling' prophesies that never happened, I am now highly skeptical. If it were not for the fact that I feel that many in the movement have lied about the effects global warming, who also bully and insult those that are skeptical, and if it were not for all the false prophesies based on hysterical the sky is falling arguments, it would be easier to take a less skeptical approach to believing in it again.

 

But that doesn't seem to be happening, today many leaders of the movement still make false the sky is falling arguments and they still are rather snotty and insulting to those that are skeptical.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Hahaha! touche

 

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

[NotreDame]

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

 

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

[CrossCuT]

I would just like to point out that because one denies or is skeptical of 'Global Warming', doesn't not mean necessarily that the person is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment. I don't know anyone that would call themselves Republican or identify with any similar group who is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment.

 

I myself am very much an advocate for a clean environment, but I am highly skeptical of 'Global Warming'. I use to believe, but due to many of the false prophets of that movement, who've predicted many various types of 'the sky is falling' prophesies that never happened, I am now highly skeptical. If it were not for the fact that I feel that many in the movement have lied about the effects global warming, who also bully and insult those that are skeptical, and if it were not for all the false prophesies based on hysterical the sky is falling arguments, it would be easier to take a less skeptical approach to believing in it again.

 

But that doesn't seem to be happening, today many leaders of the movement still make false the sky is falling arguments and they still are rather snotty and insulting to those that are skeptical.

The term "Global Warming" confuses people. And I know that some people dismiss the change of term as evidence that nobody actually knows what is going on, it is imporatnt to understand that some terms are "fads" or the results of pop culture even if they started out as scientific. A better word would be Global Climate Change although this is a silly video that illustrates that.
 

http://youtu.be/8Rl9_JvEKaY

 

The most important parts are towards the end of the video, but he uses the example of the Polar Vortex craze to explain why "Global Warming" isnt a very good term. etc. If you can get past his silliness its a good video.

 

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

 

Skateboards 

[add]

Isn't it possible that part of the reason we are in this mess is partly because of all the industrialization a hundred years ago? The earth is very large, so it doesn't get destroyed or disrupted within a day; it takes time for things to take their full effect.

 

even if that were true one hundred years ago or today, and i don't believe it is, how is it the fault of republicans?

 

what would you have society do, give up trains , planes, and automobiles, computers, cell phones, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, heated buildings, modern farming (as we know it) and all the other  evil conveniences of technology? 

 

would that be an improvement somehow?

[4588686]

even if that were true one hundred years ago or today, and i don't believe it is, how is it the fault of republicans?

 

what would you have society do, give up trains , planes, and automobiles, computers, cell phones, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, heated buildings, modern farming (as we know it) and all the other  evil conveniences of technology? 

 

would that be an improvement somehow?

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/its-not-too-late-to-reverse-the-alarming-trend-of,34896/

 

GENEVA—With the implementation of tighter carbon emissions caps and more responsible household energy use, it is not too late to reverse the dire course of global warming, a panel of scientists who know full well that it is far too late and we are all doomed told reporters today. “If we all do our part right now to design and enforce more responsible business and environmental practices, there’s still a good chance we can avoid the calamitous consequences of worldwide climate change,” said climatologist Dr. Kevin Little, a man who, deep in his heart, knows all too acutely that it’s over, there’s not a damned thing we can do, and so we might as well just start preparing now for what is certain to be the unprecedented destruction of human civilization at the hands of a ravaged ecosystem. “It will take massive investment and cooperation on a global scale, but I’m optimistic we can be in good shape by around 2030 or so.” The researchers who awake each morning with the grim realization that they are bearing witness to mankind’s sad, inevitable endgame also suggested there is still very much a chance of stabilizing the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.

[4588686]

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

 

 

Right.  Well, if Time magazine wrote an article contradicting an earlier article that they wrote in the 70s then that must mean that the global scientific community is wrong this time.  Because Time Magazine lolz hahahhahahaha pwnd checkmate, atheists

[Socrates]

Predicated, of course, on the assumption that we also need to stop subsidizing current conventional energy sources so that we can finally start from an undistorted market for energy.

 

Exactly.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

Dells, take a chill pill and actually READ MY POST before you get offended and reply.  I'm not going to walk you through everything, because I'm tired, in a hotel, in the middle of nowhere, but let's start with your following question:

 

"Do you deny that corporations would take advantage of both people and the environment without a government to protect us from such extremes?" 

 

Can you read from my post where I said the following? 

 

 

What do you think that means?  Do you think you have the answer to your question from that?  It's pretty clear that you do. 

 

Now maybe you can re-read the rest of the post see that I'm not saying what you think I am saying. 

 

What then are you calling marxism? I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. No one on this thread has openly advocated for any form of marxism or socialism. We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist. Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. 

[NotreDame]

What then are you calling marxism? I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. No one on this thread has openly advocated for any form of marxism or socialism. We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist. Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. 

 

What then are you calling marxism >>>  I'd be onboard with the wikipedia definition. 

 

I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. >>>  Never did that.

 

We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist >>>  Not binary, more of a linear continuuum which applies in some cases, but not in all

 

Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. >>>  Never my intent.

[PhuturePriest]

What then are you calling marxism >>> I'd be onboard with the wikipedia definition.

I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. >>> Never did that.

We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist >>> Not binary, more of a linear continuuum which applies in some cases, but not in all

Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. >>> Never my intent.

The environment and political labels aside, I like having you around the phorum, and I hope you weren't offended at any time and that no one crossed any lines.

[NotreDame]

The environment and political labels aside, I like having you around the phorum, and I hope you weren't offended at any time and that no one crossed any lines.

 

Awwwww.. That's really sweet FP.  Dont' think I've been avoiding anyone here.  I've just been interviewing and drinking heavily (in that order.)  Apparently I wasn't cocky enough today (I know, huh?) so I get another shot at it tomorrow.  I plan to bring the hammer down and close the deal.  We'll see.

[CrossCuT]

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

 

You should watch the video I posted.

 

Global Climate change simply means that climates with change. Ice will melt in some places, ice will form in some places, rain will stop in some places, rain will happen more frequently in others.

 

The warming part simply refers to the GLOBE in general although local temperatures can do whatever they want. You wont even be able to NOTICE a global temperature increase on a local scale. So you cant take your own personal observation of your immediate surroundings as evidence.

 

Also, the best thing about Science is that it is impartial and changes as new evidence is found. What they thought in 1977 may not be what they think in 2006 and they will FULLY say "Hey based on what we knew then we know NOW that it was incorrect. Here is our new understanding based on new evidence brought about by better inquiry and technology."

 

At one point in time they used to think that you could drain the an illness out of someone by draining their blood. Notice how they dont do that anymore....

[fides' Jack]

Why are so many republicans against the environment, and favor industrialization and destruction of ecosystems, and make fun of people who take a moral objection to that? I'm conservative economically, but I am adamantly pro-environment and pro-conservation. People don't consider me a real conservative and think I'm a liberal hippie because I don't favor killing ecosystems for money and believe in climate change (Climate change doesn't mean it's going to get super hot, which is why the polar vortex (something that happens all the time every single year) doesn't disprove it in the slightest).

 

Republican and conservative do not always go hand-in-hand.  But I think in general this specific case is becoming more and more rare.

 

I'm all for protecting the environment, but not at the cost of knowledge or intelligence. 

 

 

I love how people say "Alaska has the resources to power America for over 200 years!" Yes, it does. But don't they realize how adversely it would affect the environment if we took all of its resources?

 

Do you know how adversely it would affect the environment if we took all its resources?  I don't know if you're thinking about what would happen if we used all its resources, which is a different matter.  But in that case, it wouldn't make a difference.  We would simply be using our own resources instead of another country's - which is far better economically, and no worse environmentally.

 

 

I'm not trolling, it's a fact. I've never met or seen a republican who supports the environment and conservation efforts. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but everyone in the media who is a republican makes fun of conservationists and environmentalists.

 

Hi, I'm Jack.  Nice to meet you.