The Unmentionable

Darla said:
I've been pretty amazed that the only time Climate Change is ever discussed on this board, pretty much, it's when our resident oil schill Tom, or some other idiot denier, posts a bunch of bs "Debunking" (LOL) the looming planetary disaster. It's especially interesting to me that our young posters, those who are 20 something or younger, never talk about it. It will change their lives in ways they cannot even yet imagine, yet total silence as they natter on about gun rights and other bullshit. Even our murderous drone policy pales in comparison...after all, climate change is actually going to kill most of the people we are bombing anyway. The body count cannot compate. This is planetary disaster coming, and it's coming soon. Of course we see it already, it's here, but it's going to get so much worse.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tion-never-mentions-climate-change/?mobile=wt

Very informative article. Remember, it doesn't matter if SF or tinfoil or the oil schill Tom don't "believe" in it. It doesn't require the belief of idiots...or of anyone. It's here. If you're in your 20's or younger it's going to fuck up your life. In fact, if you're anywhere younger than 65 it's probably going to fuck up your life.

Well, I am away for a four day weekend, enjoy! :)
Click to expand...
I don't understand the science deniers either. I've worked in the environmental field for a long time now and though my area of expertise is not air quality I've seen enough of NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) data and knowing the billions of tons of pollutants, particulates, acid gasses (NOx & SOx), greenhouse gases, etc, etc dumped into our atmosphere every year, it doesn't take an Albert Einstein to predict, based on said data, that such large volumes of pollution would impact climate.

Now if the deniers were intellectually honest they could make the honest argument that even though there is vast amounts of data conclusively demonstrates that the massive amounts of pollution impact climate, not enough is known about the causal affects of pollution and climate to implement sound government policies that could cost business and consumers vast somes of money around the world. That's an honest argument and one I can relate too. The question being, what would be sound policies that would correct the problem and how do we know those policies would work? Certainly legitimate questions about some of the solutions that have been proposed.

Instead, primarily motivated by political beliefs, they attempt to undermine the science by rationalizing outlier data (which I'm completely open minded too) and parsing terms like "Global Warming". It's a pretty pathetic attempt at self delusion but us humans are famous for that.
 
The Dude said:
I have no problem with a true greenie, I'm guessing darla's blow drier and other industrial beauty tools have a Loch Ness monster size carbon footprint!
I mean her bashing of supertool offset any gain from her reusable canvas yuppy grocery bag.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You don't have to be a "greenie" to note that those who are hostile to the science being done on climate change are politically motivated. The data demonstrating that air pollution is impacting our climate is vast and conclusive. I mean it takes no stretch of the imagination that if you dump billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that it will impact climate. That's accepted science. Only cranks or the politically motivated dispute that fact. What's not an established fact is what are the causal links between pollution and climate and how can we implement sound public policy that would work?

Neither side has a good answer to that question but the deniers attempts to undermine the science cause they oppose the politics is stupid and short sighted to the extreme.
 
Last edited:
Howey said:
I look at it two ways.

A. We appreciate our Earth and work together to keep it alive because it is a living entity.

B. We ignore all the possibilities of disaster and let nature, or lack of nurture, take it's toll.

All I can prove is my potted plants and garden thrive with attention and care, not neglect.
Click to expand...
Ya know....I've always wondered that if instead of talking to your plants...if you yelled at them.....would they still grow only be be frustrated and resentful?
 
Steelplate said:
I was just fucking with ya. But I'm glad you'll be utilizing public transportation.:D

Actually, I would have no problem at all driving an electric....if they were reasonably priced and got better range, or had a gas backup(like the Volt). But the price point is too high for me. If the Volt gets down to Prius range....I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
I ride my bike to work! :)

But I have to be honest....I ride my bike to work not because of any political conviction but because I really just like to ride my bike. :)
 
Thing1 said:
I don't care if AGW can be proven or not (for the record, it probably can't be). Why is it that token measures on emissions standards seem to tick people off, but the fact that the oil industry owns Washington and has kept alternatives down for decades doesn't even warrant a mild comment of protest?
Click to expand...

???? Then how do you figure the US has done more to reduce CO2 than any other country?
 
Darla said:
I've been pretty amazed that the only time Climate Change is ever discussed on this board, pretty much, it's when our resident oil schill Tom, or some other idiot denier, posts a bunch of bs "Debunking" (LOL) the looming planetary disaster. It's especially interesting to me that our young posters, those who are 20 something or younger, never talk about it. It will change their lives in ways they cannot even yet imagine, yet total silence as they natter on about gun rights and other bullshit. Even our murderous drone policy pales in comparison...after all, climate change is actually going to kill most of the people we are bombing anyway. The body count cannot compate. This is planetary disaster coming, and it's coming soon. Of course we see it already, it's here, but it's going to get so much worse.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tion-never-mentions-climate-change/?mobile=wt

Very informative article. Remember, it doesn't matter if SF or tinfoil or the oil schill Tom don't "believe" in it. It doesn't require the belief of idiots...or of anyone. It's here. If you're in your 20's or younger it's going to fuck up your life. In fact, if you're anywhere younger than 65 it's probably going to fuck up your life.

Well, I am away for a four day weekend, enjoy! :)
Click to expand...

So in other words you are going to continue to ignore the FACT that the actual data is blowing up the computer models the global warming fear mongers continue to rely upon?

The idiots in this case are people like you. The ones that believe in the fantasy they were sold regardless of the facts.
 
Superfreak said:
So in other words you are going to continue to ignore the FACT that the actual data is blowing up the computer models the global warming fear mongers continue to rely upon?

The idiots in this case are people like you. The ones that believe in the fantasy they were sold regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...


FACT.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I disagree. You don't have to be a "greenie" to note that those who are hostile to the science being done on climate change are politically motivated. The data demonstrating that air pollution is impacting our climate is vast and conclusive. I mean it takes no stretch of the imagination that if you dump billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that it will impact climate. That's accepted science. Only cranks or the politically motivated dispute that fact. What's not an established fact is what are the causal links between pollution and climate and how can we implement sound public policy that would work?

Neither side has a good answer to that question but the deniers attempts to undermine the science cause they oppose the politics is stupid and short sighted to the extreme.
Click to expand...

Your problem is that the 'science' that 'supports' man made global warming is nonsense. The computer models they created have been shown time and again to be wrong. Yet idiots still proclaim that it is CONSENSUS! or '97% of scientists agree' (which is nonsense)

Get back to providing REAL ideas and solutions and stop buying into the fear mongers nonsense. The AGW fear mongers have done more to hurt the advancement of clean energy than anyone. They have focused so much on the blame man game that people get turned off on the topic of what we can do to reduce ACTUAL pollutants.

Darla wonders why the younger generation on here doesn't talk about it. The reason is that idiots like her and you try to shut down the conversation if anyone dares to criticize the fear mongers tactics and 'conclusions'. The ones undermining the ACTUAL science are people like you and Darla.
 
Superfreak said:
Your problem is that the 'science' that 'supports' man made global warming is nonsense. The computer models they created have been shown time and again to be wrong. Yet idiots still proclaim that it is CONSENSUS! or '97% of scientists agree' (which is nonsense)

Get back to providing REAL ideas and solutions and stop buying into the fear mongers nonsense. The AGW fear mongers have done more to hurt the advancement of clean energy than anyone. They have focused so much on the blame man game that people get turned off on the topic of what we can do to reduce ACTUAL pollutants.

Darla wonders why the younger generation on here doesn't talk about it. The reason is that idiots like her and you try to shut down the conversation if anyone dares to criticize the fear mongers tactics and 'conclusions'. The ones undermining the ACTUAL science are people like you and Darla.
Click to expand...

Ummm...Are you saying it's not the consensus of a majority of scientists that climate change is real?
 
Darla said:
I've been pretty amazed that the only time Climate Change is ever discussed on this board, pretty much, it's when our resident oil schill Tom, or some other idiot denier, posts a bunch of bs "Debunking" (LOL) the looming planetary disaster. It's especially interesting to me that our young posters, those who are 20 something or younger, never talk about it. It will change their lives in ways they cannot even yet imagine, yet total silence as they natter on about gun rights and other bullshit. Even our murderous drone policy pales in comparison...after all, climate change is actually going to kill most of the people we are bombing anyway. The body count cannot compate. This is planetary disaster coming, and it's coming soon. Of course we see it already, it's here, but it's going to get so much worse.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tion-never-mentions-climate-change/?mobile=wt

Very informative article. Remember, it doesn't matter if SF or tinfoil or the oil schill Tom don't "believe" in it. It doesn't require the belief of idiots...or of anyone. It's here. If you're in your 20's or younger it's going to fuck up your life. In fact, if you're anywhere younger than 65 it's probably going to fuck up your life.

Well, I am away for a four day weekend, enjoy! :)
Click to expand...

I expect the typical replies Darla. Didn't you hear? Climate change was bought by big polluters, and they turned it over to the propaganda apparatus that told us for years there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.

I also find it amazing that right wing burger flippers can become instant climatologists within a few hours of propaganda swallowing.

I have a theory; there is a psychological reason right wingers MUST reject climate change. Because they are controlled by fear, they must have closure on anything that could induce overwhelming fear. They couldn't function with that constant knowledge. It would lead to a modern day Banzai Cliff mass suicide.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I disagree. You don't have to be a "greenie" to note that those who are hostile to the science being done on climate change are politically motivated. The data demonstrating that air pollution is impacting our climate is vast and conclusive. I mean it takes no stretch of the imagination that if you dump billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere that it will impact climate. That's accepted science. Only cranks or the politically motivated dispute that fact. What's not an established fact is what are the causal links between pollution and climate and how can we implement sound public policy that would work?

Neither side has a good answer to that question but the deniers attempts to undermine the science cause they oppose the politics is stupid and short sighted to the extreme.
Click to expand...

I won't listen to somebody getting excited about the science unless their carbon footprint is way smaller than mine.
Spare me the step over a homeless person to spit on someone wearing fur outrage.
 
Bfgrn said:
I expect the typical replies Darla. Didn't you hear? Climate change was bought by big polluters, and they turned it over to the propaganda apparatus that told us for years there is no link between cigarettes and cancer.

I also find it amazing that right wing burger flippers can become instant climatologists within a few hours of propaganda swallowing.

I have a theory; there is a psychological reason right wingers MUST reject climate change. Because they are controlled by fear, they must have closure on anything that could induce overwhelming fear. They couldn't function with that constant knowledge. It would lead to a modern day Banzai Cliff mass suicide.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO... the entire premise of 'man is causing global catastrophy' is based on FEAR. They scare the morons into following the political agenda.
 
I also find it comical that until the East Anglia Email scandal NONE of these Libs on the internet knew what East Anglia was or that the UN and most of the "scientific community" were basing their "findings" on the EA research.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't understand the science deniers either. I've worked in the environmental field for a long time now and though my area of expertise is not air quality I've seen enough of NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) data and knowing the billions of tons of pollutants, particulates, acid gasses (NOx & SOx), greenhouse gases, etc, etc dumped into our atmosphere every year, it doesn't take an Albert Einstein to predict, based on said data, that such large volumes of pollution would impact climate.

Now if the deniers were intellectually honest they could make the honest argument that even though there is vast amounts of data conclusively demonstrates that the massive amounts of pollution impact climate, not enough is known about the causal affects of pollution and climate to implement sound government policies that could cost business and consumers vast somes of money around the world. That's an honest argument and one I can relate too. The question being, what would be sound policies that would correct the problem and how do we know those policies would work? Certainly legitimate questions about some of the solutions that have been proposed.

Instead, primarily motivated by political beliefs, they attempt to undermine the science by rationalizing outlier data (which I'm completely open minded too) and parsing terms like "Global Warming". It's a pretty pathetic attempt at self delusion but us humans are famous for that.
Click to expand...

The problem is nothing is free...NOTHING.

Excerpt from a great speech (I highly recommend reading the entire speech)

"The industry and the great big polluters and their indentured servants and our political process have done a great job. And their PR firms and their faulty "biostitutes," and all these think tanks on Capitol Hill, have done a great job over the past couple of decades of marginalizing the environmental movement, of marginalizing us as radicals, as tree huggers or, as I heard the other day, pagans who worship trees and sacrifice people. But there is nothing radical about the idea of clean air and clean water for our children. As I said before, we're not protecting the environment for the sake of the fish and the birds and the trees. We're protecting it for our own sake, because it's the infrastructure of our communities, and because it enriches us.

If you talk to these people on Capitol Hill who are promoting these kind of changes and ask them, "Why are you doing this?" What they invariably say is, "Well, the time has come in our nation's history where we have to choose between economic prosperity on the one hand and environmental protection on the other." And that is a false choice. In 100 percent of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy. Especially if we measure our economy, and this is how we ought to be measuring it, based upon its jobs and the dignity of jobs over the generations, over the long term and on how it preserves the value of the assets of our communities.

If ,on the other hand, we want to do what they've been urging us to do on Capitol Hill, which is to treat the planet as if were a business in liquidation, to convert our natural resource to cash as quickly as possible, to have a few years of pollution-based prosperity, then we can generate an instantaneous cash flow and the illusion of a prosperous economy. But our children are going to pay for our joyride. They're going to pay for it with muted landscapes, poor health, and huge cleanup costs that are going to amplify over time, and that they will never, ever be able to pay off. Environmental injury is deficit spending. It's a way of loading the cost of our generation's prosperity onto the backs of our children."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top