My Two Cents on the Election

[TheWalrus]

Retard mode: engage!

What's really funny is how the term "climate change" used to be characterized as "global warming," but due to a series of bitter winter storms on the east coast, it was hard to convince people greenhouse gases were warming our planet. Well "global warming" just won't due in explaining this crisis right? "Climate change" is just such a vague term that it is almost laughable. Guess what, it is called the change in seasons. Beyond that our planet does go through extreme weather changes over time. I am sure many of you have heard of the "Ice Age".

Retard mode: disengage!

So pollution may obviously have harmful effects on our environment, but the weather is the last thing I am worried about.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You need to have a long conversation with your brain to see where you are on this one.

[TrojanFin]

Sorry Walrus... did that go over your head? Let me simplify it for you.

I... don't... believe... in... global...warming.

However, I am acknowledging the impact that humans can play in hurting the environment, such as oil spills, meltdown of nuclear plants and the subsequent radiation, and everyone should do their part to minimize waste by using recycled products or not drinking out of plastic water bottles daily and instead use metal reusable bottles (ie minimize our trash output).

Believe it or not, you can be concerned about the environment without believing in "climate change" or whatever name you want to give it.

I know the fortune cookie gave you another insult you just had post on this thread.

[Locke]

Sorry Walrus... did that go over your head? Let me simplify it for you.

I... don't... believe... in... global...warming.

However, I am acknowledging the impact that humans can play in hurting the environment, such as oil spills, meltdown of nuclear plants and the subsequent radiation, and everyone should do their part to minimize waste by using recycled products or not drinking out of plastic water bottles daily and instead use metal reusable bottles (ie minimize our trash output).

Believe it or not, you can be concerned about the environment without believing in "climate change" or whatever name you want to give it.

I know the fortune cookie gave you another insult you just had post on this thread.

So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?

[Spesh]

So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?

I doubt thats what Trojanfin thinks. I mean, those guys are clearly RINO's. He follows a real Republicans opinion:

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TrojanFin]

So you believe thousands of scientists across the globe, all from different countries, cities, universities, factions, and even fields of study, are all wrong, and Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh are right? Am I correct in that assessment...?

That's a classic straw man. Who am I to disagree with all the scientists and universities from all over the world?


As an aside... would it be fair for me to assume that you get all your facts from Rachel Maddow and John Stewart? Typical association fallacy, and no I don't listen to Rush or Beck.


Getting back to the point. I disagree with "organizations" that keep reiterating that "climate change" is a threat.

You make the false assumption that the findings of scientists and universities are not filtered in any way by those who have a higher agenda. See "Climategate."


What kind of agenda could such "organizations" have? Well it usually boils down to money and power. Money in the form of ongoing grants, and power in the form of political influence.

The second false assumption that you have made is that all scientists have come to the same conclusion. That's not the case as indicated in this article.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.

@Spesh

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.


"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."


In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures.

Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people.

The agency that would be largely responsible for wielding this control would be the EPA. Take a listen to this clip.


Mark Levin Show 10/1/12

cue to 77:35-80:00



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So that's why I don't give "climate change" much credence.

[Spesh]

@Spesh

In essence, Romney is correct that humans have impacted "climate change," but the impact is so minimal as to be insignificant such as ".9 of 1 percent."

In your last quote, I would be willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt because of the use of the of the word "may." He is conceding that he is no scientist, but agrees generally speaking that less pollutants cannot possibly be a bad thing.

Ah, so 1 word disproves his entire point. Your not focusing on "The worlds climate is changing and humans are contributing to it", your focusing on "hey, those gases may be doing it". And, of course, your taking that single word so you can completely distort what Romney actually said and what you want him to mean. Thats, you know, reasonable.

Please show me the Romney quote of ".9-1%"? Keep in mind, Romney has trouble with percentages. Im doubtful that such a quote exists, as the rest of Romney's answer goes in a different direction, but im willing to be proven wrong.

[SkapePhin]

I've personally never understood how or why climate change became a political issue. There wasn't some big party line struggle over whether smoking causes cancer, yet a planetary version of the same thing becomes a decades long Democrat vs. Republican fight? Bizarre.

Big Oil = Big $$$

That is how it became a political issue...

[TruthBeTold]

The same way even a mediocre boxer can beat up a cripple. Elections are not merely referendums on this or that candidate, even though that's the way opposing campaigns always want to make it. The voters who decide elections view it as an actual choice, and Romney has been simply miserable at making the case that he's anything but an empty vessel for anti-Obamaism. Like Awsi said, it's not enough. Among other things, every gaffe like the 47% comment serve to negatively fill in huge swathes of deliberately vague space because there's not enough substance behind the campaign to combat it.

It really must make you crazy to see the polls and read the projections and know Obama is going to win. I'm fortunate in that I grew up in a Republican family so I don't reflexively demonize the other side but your post reads like you've never had a substantive discussion about politics with a liberal you respect. As in ever. The fact that this country is about to fairly well resoundingly reelect the president must utterly baffle you.

Walrus this country is not going to reelect an incompetent president. It is not going to be that close. People are looking at results and will make their decision based on results. My family members are Conservatives which is the difference. We are cleaning out the Rhinos again this term which must drive the so called Republicans nuts.

[TheWalrus]

Big Oil = Big $$$

That is how it became a political issue...

Big Tobacco =/= Big $$$?

[TheWalrus]

Walrus this country is not going to reelect an incompetent president. It is not going to be that close. People are looking at results and will make their decision based on results. My family members are Conservatives which is the difference. We are cleaning out the Rhinos again this term which must drive the so called Republicans nuts.

That's awful rosy picture of the electorate you're painting there. Not sure what country you've been living in, but it's certainly not this one.

Anyway, should be fun to revisit this thread in November. I'm sure you didn't think Obama would be elected four years ago, either.