Chavez Proves Andropogenic Global Warming Movement is a Political One

[TheDanold]

I was thinking on this today and I think we can all say it's noticeable that the human contributed Global Warming movement is always quick to call out Bush for his oil ties or rant against "mideast oil", but do they ever call out or criticize Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for his increased production of oil, for his promotion of oil and basically funding just about all his nation does with oil money?
No they never do that.

Why not?
Because the global warming movement is a political one, they are ONLY interested in criticizing rightwing governments or people, they are NOT interested in criticizing lefties like Socialist Chavez.
They have shown this by their OWN actions.
This proves that their claims of wanting to save the earth or environment, or how it transcends politics and so on is completely hollow.
It is a political movement and human produced global warming is no more than a tool to attack rightwingers with.

 

[Onceler]

Dano, you're the only person I know who thinks of Hugo Chavez daily. I never think about him, unless I see your daily post on him, or Fox has a picture of him with Sean Penn.

I criticize Bush & our government because they're OUR GOVERNMENT.

If it helps you sleep at night, here goes: damn you, Hugo Chavez...damn you to hell!

 

[TheDanold]

Dano, you're the only person I know who thinks of Hugo Chavez daily. I never think about him, unless I see your daily post on him, or Fox has a picture of him with Sean Penn.

Good point, lefties like Sean Penn, Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey love to call out Bush for criticism on global warming, but they all rub shoulders with huge oil producer/promoter Chavez because they like his ideology.

I criticize Bush & our government because they're OUR GOVERNMENT.

I thought you might try this, that would be why I mentioned how lefties rant against the mideast that produces oil. Of course like the strawman seeker you are, you went after the weaker part and chose to ignore the part that immediately repudiates your point.

If it helps you sleep at night, here goes: damn you, Hugo Chavez...damn you to hell!

Yeah I thought you'd try this too, it's after the fact dude, it's not genuine and you know it, just a sad fake attempt to make yourself look impartial.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Purely political, is it? Strange. I was browsing through the October 26 issue of Science yesterday -- I'd missed that one: I think it got recycled along with a bunch of crappy Christmas catalogs -- and found several articles dealing with the scientific basis for "andropogenic" (sic) climate change. This is not surprising since I don't believe a single issue has gone by recently without at least one such paper.

It seems that de Nano's vision is highly selective. Few nations have received more, or more vehement, criticism from those of us concerned with addressing climate change politically than has China. Or is the PRC no longer a "leftist" regime?

 

[Onceler]

"why I mentioned how lefties rant against the mideast that produces oil."

Can you produce this rant?

What is normally said?

As a leftie, I usually talk about dependence on Mideast oil. I don't think I have ever said anything along the lines of "damn those oil producers!" We're the enablers.

You are soooooooo thick & dense. I love threads like this.

 

[TheDanold]

Purely political, is it? Strange. I was browsing through the October 26 issue of Science yesterday -- I'd missed that one: I think it got recycled along with a bunch of crappy Christmas catalogs -- and found several articles dealing with the scientific basis for "andropogenic" (sic) climate change. This is not surprising since I don't believe a single issue has gone by recently without at least one such paper.

It seems that de Nano's vision is highly selective. Few nations have received more, or more vehement, criticism from those of us concerned with addressing climate change politically than has China. Or is the PRC no longer a "leftist" regime?

No it is not, it is viewed now more as Capitalist, with everything from criticism over working conditions to the environment to outsourcing.

The so called PRC is hardly a model of leftism now anyway and you know that.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I was thinking on this today and I think we can all say it's noticeable that the human contributed Global Warming movement is always quick to call out Bush for his oil ties or rant against "mideast oil", but do they ever call out or criticize Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for his increased production of oil, for his promotion of oil and basically funding just about all his nation does with oil money?
No they never do that.

Why not?
Because the global warming movement is a political one, they are ONLY interested in criticizing rightwing governments or people, they are NOT interested in criticizing lefties like Socialist Chavez.
They have shown this by their OWN actions.
This proves that their claims of wanting to save the earth or environment, or how it transcends politics and so on is completely hollow.
It is a political movement and human produced global warming is no more than a tool to attack rightwingers with.

Why would I critiscize Chavez? Which nation did he recently invade? Which developed fossil fuel-squoundering nation does he rule over?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Purely political, is it? Strange. I was browsing through the October 26 issue of Science yesterday -- I'd missed that one: I think it got recycled along with a bunch of crappy Christmas catalogs -- and found several articles dealing with the scientific basis for "andropogenic" (sic) climate change. This is not surprising since I don't believe a single issue has gone by recently without at least one such paper.

It seems that de Nano's vision is highly selective. Few nations have received more, or more vehement, criticism from those of us concerned with addressing climate change politically than has China. Or is the PRC no longer a "leftist" regime?

Yeah Chin's the worst nation in the whole damn world in that regard.

 

[TheDanold]

"why I mentioned how lefties rant against the mideast that produces oil."

Can you produce this rant?

What is normally said?

As a leftie, I usually talk about dependence on Mideast oil. I don't think I have ever said anything along the lines of "damn those oil producers!" We're the enablers.

You are soooooooo thick & dense. I love threads like this.

Ok so basically you are now claiming that you were only ever concerned with mideast oil because of our dependence and NOT because of the environmental impact?
Oh please say "yes"!

 

[TheDanold]

Why would I critiscize Chavez? Which nation did he recently invade? Which developed fossil fuel-squoundering nation does he rule over?

???
WTF?
Where did I say anything about invasion? He produces and promotes oil and goes around the world trying to peddle people on more oil (his oil trade agreements), hands out free oil.
He's probably one of the least environmentally green rulers around - strangely enough the enviro-movement is completely silent about him.
Hmmm, what could be the reason?

 

[Onceler]

Ok so basically you are now claiming that you were only ever concerned with mideast oil because of our dependence and NOT because of the environmental impact?
Oh please say "yes"!

Dano, you're twisting & misrepresenting - not a huge surprise.

Yes, I want us to move off our dependence on Mideast oil. Yes, I want the world in general to start looking at alternatives. But no, I don't "rant" against Mideast governments for making us depend on them. It's such a ridiculous, retarded analogy to say "the left rants against the Mideast for oil, but are silent against Chavez."

I can't even debate on that level. It's so simplistic that it's utterly mind-boggling. Again, not surprising.

 

[Onceler]

And of course I'm concerned about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, which is why I rail against our dependence on them, and encourage more R & D for alternatives.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

???
WTF?
Where did I say anything about invasion? He produces and promotes oil and goes around the world trying to peddle people on more oil (his oil trade agreements), hands out free oil.
He's probably one of the least environmentally green rulers around - strangely enough the enviro-movement is completely silent about him.
Hmmm, what could be the reason?

Priorities.

The way to address excessive consumption of oil is not by restricting supply. That will take care of itself in the not too distant future anyway. The way to address excessive demand for oil is by discouraging oil consumption, especially in those nations that consume vast quantities.

 

[Onceler]

All this thread "proves" is that Dano will go to any length to cast doubt on AGW (which, coincidentally, is an ideological crusade for him, and not based on science or factual evidence).

 

[gonzojournals]

I've never bought into global warming. Even if it does exist, it is stupid to act like we can do anything to stop it now.

Al Gore and his little slideshow, if accurate, show GW to be to the point where I cannot imagine any change of ours making much of a difference. Meanwhile, they have the whole country afraid that the Earth is just going to suddenly flood.

The sad thing is that 20 years from now when I'm still standing on dry land and pointing out that they were wrong about global warming, they will say that they stopped it, even though it never existed.

 

[Onceler]

"The sad thing is that 20 years from now when I'm still standing on dry land and pointing out that they were wrong about global warming, they will say that they stopped it, even though it never existed."

No worries on that one. The earth is warming, and the changes will likely be significant.

But I agree that there is probably little the world can do about it at this point, though I'm always up for the ol' college try...

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I've never bought into global warming. Even if it does exist, it is stupid to act like we can do anything to stop it now.

There is no longer any debate as to whether it exists. The debate now is over the extent to which human industry contributes to the rate of climate change.

You want to assume that we can't do anything about it? That's a very risky and extreme assumption, it seems to me. Do you, by chance, buy into the Chicken Little hysteria over supposed ruination for our economy if we try to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?

Al Gore and his little slideshow, if accurate, show GW to be to the point where I cannot imagine any change of ours making much of a difference. Meanwhile, they have the whole country afraid that the Earth is just going to suddenly flood.

The sad thing is that 20 years from now when I'm still standing on dry land and pointing out that they were wrong about global warming, they will say that they stopped it, even though it never existed.

Again, even the most politically conservative scientists in the climatological community now admit that it's happening. The only debate is about the extent to which we are contributing to it.

The thesis to which Al Gore subscribes -- and I too, though that hardly matters -- is that our industry is increasing the rate of change dramatically. If that is the case then cutting greenhouse gas emissions may well have a profound effect on climate change.

Can't hurt to try.

 

[Onceler]

"Do you, by chance, buy into the Chicken Little hysteria over supposed ruination for our economy if we try to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? "

I love this. As though our economy would suffer if we were able to start pouring our millions into domestic resources instead of sending it abroad.

They should take a look at the costs of Katrina & the recent CA fires if they really want a definition of "economically devastating." The insurance companies know what's going on...they're one of the few industries lobbying for action...

 

[gonzojournals]

I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain that there have been world-wide panics before that EVERYONE has believed....I wonder what happened with all of those.

 

[Onceler]

I'm sorry, but I'm fairly certain that there have been world-wide panics before that EVERYONE has believed....I wonder what happened with all of those.

Such as?

And don't say "the ice age scare of the 70's." That was pretty fringe.

The science on global warming is definitive, and eye-opening. It won't "kill man off," but we are going to have to adjust.