Government is going too far with global warming message

acesfull86 said:
I'll go on record as supporting a carbon tax - that's right I said tax- assuming it is offset (at a minimum) with tax cuts elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of thing that needs to happen, even though it will create some pain. We need to establish some price signals and understand, as a society, that the government is currently subsidizing an unsustainable way of life.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Weird. I suggest watching Vice on HBO. The latest episode has a segment specifically on climate change's effects in Texas.

From the beef industry shutting down jobs because farmers have to sell their cattle because no water, to the oil industry buying up a lot of the water to use for fracking and at the same time showing Texas politicians deny global warming exists.

Has clips of the deeply religious devout Christians in Texas who say they don't believe in global warming because god controls the weather...

It's really interesting and after watching it you feel more sorry to know that god isn't going to bring them rain. It touches up a lot of the stuff we've discussed in this thread including a GOP congressman who converted to believing in global warming and was primaried by a tea bagger who used that against him.

He simply said "Al Gore was for it so I was automatically against it until I looked into the science and data".
Click to expand...

It's just those kind of externalities that the public, in large, doesn't get. The public is already picking up the tab for so many things—pollution remediation, environmental damage, increased health care costs—that are direct consequences of our energy policy.
 
BedellBrave said:
I actually think that is pretty good. The thing though that needs to be considered is what "solutions" actually do on the backs of the poor. Rich will stay rich...
Click to expand...

so, are you saying, "maybe we shouldn't do anything cause the poor that are taken advantage of will be taken advantage of to make a better world"?

it is really late so i hope i typed that right for my point. haha

not sure your point of rich being rich etc. i don't have a problem with someone being rich
 
KeithLockhart said:
Weird. I suggest watching Vice on HBO. The latest episode has a segment specifically on climate change's effects in Texas.

From the beef industry shutting down jobs because farmers have to sell their cattle because no water, to the oil industry buying up a lot of the water to use for fracking and at the same time showing Texas politicians deny global warming exists.

Has clips of the deeply religious devout Christians in Texas who say they don't believe in global warming because god controls the weather...

It's really interesting and after watching it you feel more sorry to know that god isn't going to bring them rain. It touches up a lot of the stuff we've discussed in this thread including a GOP congressman who converted to believing in global warming and was primaried by a tea bagger who used that against him.

He simply said "Al Gore was for it so I was automatically against it until I looked into the science and data".
Click to expand...

Sounds like liberal propaganda. Attach any and all natural disaster to climate change without any scientific proof while simultaneously crapping all over the oil industry, and in this case might as well take a dump on christians as well. What was their scientific proof that linked climate change to the drought in Texas? In fact NOAA released a study on the Texas drought and found no significant link to climate change. The fracking industry is great for the economy of Texas and fracking essentially has nothing to do with the Texas drought. Typical scaremongering tactic pedaled by environmentalists.

I really don't see a difference between those who choose to flat out deny global warming exists and those who believe it's the cause of any and all natural disaster in the world. Both choose to blindly ignore science for political purposes.
 
Found this gem on an anti-climate change conservative facebook post. It had about 45 likes the last I checked.

LoriandBill High They do, after all, call themselves meterologists. Maybe they have trouble predicting the weather because they spend too much time studying meteors.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Found this gem on an anti-climate change conservative facebook post. It had about 45 likes the last I checked.

LoriandBill High They do, after all, call themselves meterologists. Maybe they have trouble predicting the weather because they spend too much time studying meteors.
Click to expand...

You spend too much time on Facebook. There I said it. Why don't you create a message board and moderate it or something? Maybe take up a hobby like tennis?
 
KeithLockhart said:
Lol "fiction"
Click to expand...

Alright goldfly, sorry, but I believe a documentary show that falsely ties the drought in Texas directly to climate change is fiction.

Please don't be that guy who actually believes everything in these documentaries.

At least this particular episode sounds like nothing more than a show for liberals to whack off to based on all the anti conservative cliches you listed. Why would I want to watch that?
 
It doesn't directly tie it.

That's why I said you have to watch to understand... so you've never heard of the show, never watched it, and you are already writing off...

I believe your actions are the exact same as what you said in your original post. Would it kill you to watch the report? It's only like 8-10 minutes.
 
yeezus said:
Not agreeing with fantasies doesn't cause impairment to impartiality.
Click to expand...

What does that mean exactly?

But my point is "science" isn't a monolithic, lock-step entity. You have a method and you have scientists and those scientists don't all come to the same conclusions. A certain paradigm may ascend to the majority view, but you've never arrived with such a paradigm (there's always room for a better understanding). We want change - change hopefully means scientific progress, but change can only come when there are dissenting views which lead to different paradigms which have great explanatory power.

And just because someone puts on the white smock of the scientist, doesn't mean they suddenly become unbiased. Sure good scientists seek to be as unbiased as they can be, but there always will be bias. And that's okay - but it needs to be acknowledged and understood.

I once was a student in a fairly decent Engineering school, and this school made all of her budding scientific minds take a humbling class in the philosophy of science. I wish those outside of such a setting would take such a class as well. it has served me well.
 
goldfly said:
so, are you saying, "maybe we shouldn't do anything cause the poor that are taken advantage of will be taken advantage of to make a better world"?

it is really late so i hope i typed that right for my point. haha

not sure your point of rich being rich etc. i don't have a problem with someone being rich
Click to expand...

No, but I am saying that whatever you do to address human factors in climate change needs to be clearly thought thru because there are often unintended adverse consequences with utopic "solutions." Basically just saying - let's seek to care for the planet and the people on it - particularly the most vulnerable.
 
2 things:

Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House in the late 70's, wore a sweater on TV and made other symbolic gestures to promote/create conversation around notions of conservation and more efficient uses of fossil fuels. He was mocked by his political opponents (R). Subsequently Reagan had the solar panels removed and we didnt hear another word from the political leaders in the Oval Office until KYoto was approved. GWB pulled out of the world wide agreement.
Look behind the funding of Climate Change deniers and the trail leads to none less than the Koch Brothers. Their point isn't really the science is debatable -- their point is regulating emissions will cost them money. Period.
I don't really want to hear how Al Gore poisoned the waters by making the issue political

Secondly, Wes, is this the study you refer to? http://www.climate.gov/
Tell me again please, what is your stance and how it is supported by NOAA?
 
Just watched VICE on climate change focusing on Tx. Certainly focused in on religion a ton. How does ga rank on Co2 emissions ? After several years of light drought we have had more rainfall in the passed two years than In my 30 years. There is water standing places I haven't seen it in my lifetime.

What does that mean as far as a pattern ? We haven't even had a hurricane season affect us a bit and that was what caused the floods in the mid - late 90s. So does that mean we aren't polluting as much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top