Government is going too far with global warming message

Tapate50 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think US weather has been mostly effected by a colder than normal to neutral eastern pacific since about the middle of 2010 and might have had a hand in these droughts. That's transitioning to an El Nino now though.
 
Tapate50 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Remember when good ole Perdue had people from all religions next to him to pray for rain? lol

As for the religion part, you had the teens say it was the government and then another teen say they proved it was a hoax anyways, then the others who simply have been praying. They'll pray for months, and when they finally do get some rain we know who they'll be thanking.
 
KeithLockhart said:
Remember when good ole Perdue had people from all religions next to him to pray for rain? lol

As for the religion part, you had the teens say it was the government and then another teen say they proved it was a hoax anyways, then the others who simply have been praying. They'll pray for months, and when they finally do get some rain we know who they'll be thanking.
Click to expand...

No, I don't remember anything about Perdue.

I have no clue what to do with that second paragraph....
 
weso1 said:
I think it's because they just don't feel that it's a huge disaster waiting to happen. I think the solution is for the government to just be honest about it. They need to say... look this is obviously a problem. We are ****ting in our own atmosphere, but we also clearly still need oil for gas right now. So how about we slowly fix the problem. you might not feel it right now, but in the future it could impact your grandchildren. So let's set up a plan that makes sense economically and environmentally.

I think the liberals are being assholes about wanting the fix immediately no matter the impact on the economy and many conservatives are being assholes by denying the whole thing.
Click to expand...

We have the legislative model of health care. Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a national policy - the 1900's ???

2010 we got something -anything through and established a policy by ---- demanding "an immediate fix."

Had (R) had it's way we'd take the political path you embrace and we will be talking mans effect on climate change 100 years from now - with no kind of policy in place.

Unlike health care where people are born everyday ----- we only have one atmosphere so:

I think alarm is in order
 
57Brave said:
We have the legislative model of health care. Teddy Roosevelt first proposed a national policy - the 1900's ???
2010 we got something -anything through and established a policy by ---- demanding "an immediate fix."
Had (R) had it's way we'd take the political path you embrace and we will be talking mans effect on climate change 100 years from now - with no kind of policy in place.

Unlike health care where people are born everyday ----- we only have one atmosphere so:
I think alarm is in order
Click to expand...

You have to get people to believe that alarm truly exists though. I just don't think it's going to work when you tell people that global warming's disastrous effects are here right now, whilest for the most part they walk out there front door to nice sunny weather.

After I get a few tornado warnings and don't actually get a tornado, I continue to take each subsequent tornado warning less and less serious.

I think there's a reasonable argument and a reasonable solution to be made. But from my seat here in the stands it seems like the only real solution being offered up by the environmentalists is the most extreme solution.

I think a vast majority of the population believes global warming exists, but aren't ready to do something drastic about it. I would personally propose adding climate change defense to the defense budget. I would argue look how much we spend on defense compared to other countries. So let's take a relatively small piece of that defense budget, without actually lowering the defense budget or increasing taxes, and use that to help lower emissions and potentially use to build sea walls if need be, a rainy day fund if you will, no pun intended. But at the same time let's actually increase oil production here in the states in the short term where we can do it cleaner rather than say Nigeria or Venezuela. Let's build those pipelines rather than ship the oil on large ships. I feel like this is a win win for everyone.
 
weso1 said:
You have to get people to believe that alarm truly exists though. I just don't think it's going to work when you tell people that global warming's disastrous effects are here right now, whilest for the most part they walk out there front door to nice sunny weather.

After I get a few tornado warnings and don't actually get a tornado, I continue to take each subsequent tornado warning less and less serious.

I think there's a reasonable argument and a reasonable solution to be made. But from my seat here in the stands it seems like the only real solution being offered up by the environmentalists is the most extreme solution.

I think a vast majority of the population believes global warming exists, but aren't ready to do something drastic about it. I would personally propose adding climate change defense to the defense budget. I would argue look how much we spend on defense compared to other countries. So let's take a relatively small piece of that defense budget, without actually lowering the defense budget or increasing taxes, and use that to help lower emissions and potentially use to build sea walls if need be, a rainy day fund if you will, no pun intended. But at the same time let's actually increase oil production here in the states in the short term where we can do it cleaner rather than say Nigeria or Venezuela. Let's build those pipelines rather than ship the oil on large ships. I feel like this is a win win for everyone.
Click to expand...

Educate on the difference between Climate and Weather. Lady Bird Johnson led a campaign to stop littering by educating the public on something they just got used to seeing and doing. Look around it actually changed the behavior of a country that was used to just throwing their trash out the car window riding down the road. I personally don't know anyone (except Arlo) that has ever been charged with littering -- all the same our streets and roadways are fairly well kept -- because there was a public relations campaign to educate -- your suggestion of payment it out of the Defense budget is reasonable and some. But, how would that play in Dumbfuchisthan? Koch Brothers would arm their wing of the Tea Party and we get no where.
Again

In a reasonable political climate I agree 100% with your thoughts but, we don't live in a reasonable political climate -- one of our fellow posters credits the stench of political air on greed. With the latest SCOTUS decisions on how campaigns are financed I don't see reasonableness winning without alarm
 
I think with a reasonable argument you can reach the more moderate population, which isn't as loud as the the more ideological on each side of the aisle, but they are a pretty large majority. I just think that's the best way to get something done.

The other way is for environmental terrorists (Hey NSA!) to strategically detonate underwater bombs along a major ice shelf causing a major landslide leading to a devastating tsunami along the US east Coast. This would get the attention of the American public. But I don't recommend this method.
 
i understand what weso is trying to say

at least somewhat

but if i am talking to a person and they can't see that Greenland is melting away, that Antarctica is melting, that storms are becoming more powerful than we have ever seen, the amount of droughts going on etc etc

not to mention that somehow i am supposed to try to convince someone that actions of humans have no bearing at all on the earth is just crazy talk

i am not sure they can be helped

and the Texas drought Vice piece on HBO is really good
 
goldfly said:
i understand what weso is trying to say

at least somewhat

but if i am talking to a person and they can't see that Greenland is melting away, that Antarctica is melting, that storms are becoming more powerful than we have ever seen, the amount of droughts going on etc etc

not to mention that somehow i am supposed to try to convince someone that actions of humans have no bearing at all on the earth is just crazy talk

i am not sure they can be helped

and the Texas drought Vice piece on HBO is really good
Click to expand...

One of my main points is that you don't have to convince the more ideological on the right. Those people are in the minority. Most people believe in some degree of global warming and are just looking for some reasonable middle ground. And for their part you don't have to convince the more ideological left either. The crazy environmentalist dumb asses who refuse to consider drilling the homeland, fracking or the Keystone pipeline for example. Most Americans are reasonable.
 
weso1 said:
The crazy environmentalist dumb asses who refuse to consider drilling the homeland, fracking or the Keystone pipeline for example.
Click to expand...

Do you actually support any of those three? Or was that supposed to be tongue in cheek?
 
goldfly said:
i understand what weso is trying to say

at least somewhat

but if i am talking to a person and they can't see that Greenland is melting away, that Antarctica is melting, that storms are becoming more powerful than we have ever seen, the amount of droughts going on etc etc

not to mention that somehow i am supposed to try to convince someone that actions of humans have no bearing at all on the earth is just crazy talk

i am not sure they can be helped

and the Texas drought Vice piece on HBO is really good
Click to expand...

Really good? Nah, it was just aight
 
Tapate50 said:
Really good? Nah, it was just aight
Click to expand...

B6C85MD.gif
 
Hawk said:
That's kind of sad to me. I don't understand why people aren't more supportive of ways to gradually dismantle our dependence on fossil fuels instead of prolonging the necessity of using a finite resource.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is completely wrong and something I'd expect from an extremist environmental doofus, which surprises me that it came from you. Increasing supply in the states doesn't increase demand or keep demand stagnant. I of course support finding way to decrease demand. All it does is hopefully shift supply and transport from Africa and the Middle East more toward the US. In other words from countries with less environmental regulations to a country with pretty stringent regulations. Oh and it costs less and we can make money off of it. Also fracking actually decreases our dependence on dirty coal in the short term. It acts as a bridge as we hopefully continue to sharply increase clean energy demand.

To break this down simply this is the difference in our plans:

Hawk: Decrease US dependence on oil but continue to have about 40-45% of our supply from countries with questionable environmental oversight and continue to use dirty coal in the short term to heat homes.

weso1: Decrease US dependence on oil and coal moreso than hawk in the short term and sharply decrease our supply from countries with poor environmental oversight.

So which plan is better?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top