Global Warming - Greatest scam in history !
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 16:27
VIEWED: 9772
PAGE 5 of 8
Curiously, Geezer can't even keep his own argument straight. If the government should decide to DO something about global warming, then they're just
Quote:But if the government does NOTHING, they're suddenly elevated to
some bureaucracy {which} gets to tell us where the line is between acceptable and too much. That'll determine what we can do, and what we can own, and how warm or cold we can be, and that we can't charcoal grill our food or have a fire in winter.
Quote:Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....
folks that are elected to office, supposedly responsible to their constituents, and subject to removal if they make too many folks too mad.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....
Signy reads, Signy does not comprehend.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Have you been drinking again ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
Not so much.
And what are you going to do when the majority of the electorate either doesn't buy human caused global warming as a threat, or doesn't think we have enough information about possible ameliorative strategies to settle on any particular solution?
Got a plan? A workable one?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that Geezer is a disinformationalist or anything....
You've either got to convince a majority of folk in the US that global warming is an imminent threat - and that someone knows how to correct it in an efficient manner - or you've got to have an external entity impose their solution on the US.
If you can provide another option, please do so.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here we have a majority of posters who, while they may or may not credit scientists with knowing anything about global warming, are calling for efficient and renewable energy. And your reply - not - hallelujah, just was I was saying was needed - popular support ! No, your response to actual popular support is - wow, you (me specifically) are crazy - looking for, believing in, being part of - whatever your point was (you made so may) - an international conspiracy to run the US.
Seriously - PN incoherent, illogical, and plain nutty. Without the interesting tidbits though.
So now you shift ground to plan B - 'THE FALSE DILEMNA'.
When you feel like having a real discussion instead of running disinformation routines, let us know.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER, you said
Quote:
You've either got to convince a majority of folk in the US that global warming is an imminent threat...
SO...
Poll: U.S. need to address global warming
Quote:
Nov. 7, 2007
NEW YORK, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- A majority of people questioned in a new Harris Poll said the United States needs to take the lead in addressing global warming. Seventy-one percent of the 1,052 U.S. adults polled last month said they believe current trends will lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures.
The poll said 87 percent agreed with the statement that "since emerging countries such as India and China will soon pass the United States as the largest contributor of greenhouse gases, whatever is done to control these gases should be undertaken by almost all industrial countries";
Eighty-one percent said they believe "the United States needs to set the lead when it comes to controlling greenhouse gases and pollution."
www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2007/11/07/
poll_us_need_to_address_global_warming/1375/
Quote:In point of fact there are many efficient means of correcting the problem.
- and that someone knows how to correct it in an efficient manner...
What I'm hearing from the global-warming deniers is...
There's no such thing as global warming!
Clearly false.
Gore shouldn't "politicize" the issue!
Why not? Politics should be how we get things done. ANY political party can jump on-board the issue. If a Party chooses not to do so, that's their choice.
You need a majority!
Okay, got it. A rather large one at that.
And last but not least: It's got to be efficient!
It is. I know you can't see it because you believe that American auto engineering is the pinnacle, but the truth is out there.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bigdamnnobody
are you seriously going to call your end of this conversation a meaningful exchange?
You like your one liner posts, and they may be amusing to you, but they certainly don't pass for high discourse,
that is not to say you aren't capable and worthy of quality discourse, and I do appreciate your follow up response, because it adds some dimension to your ealier one...
....................
I saw Gore's movie. I don't know what about it you are referring to that suggests he has been the one politicizing this issue. But perhaps you could direct me to the part of the film where he does what you suggest.
My theory is that people portray him as politicizing it because he himself is a politician and has had a (D) after his name. If that's what it takes to politicize an issue though, we are in fucking trouble. If people in Washington are unwilling to look beyond that letter to the content and the scientific consensus, well, they are the ones politicizing it...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
are you seriously going to call your end of this conversation a meaningful exchange?
You like your one liner posts, and they may be amusing to you, but they certainly don't pass for high discourse
Not to quibble here but I said BEFORE a meaningful exchange occurs. I agree that I was being naughty by bringing up Gore, hence why I used the wink emoticon. If you had really been looking for high discourse I don't think you would have started off by being condesending and insulting in your response to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
I saw Gore's movie. I don't know what about it you are referring to that suggests he has been the one politicizing this issue. But perhaps you could direct me to the part of the film where he does what you suggest.
I could supply you with my obviously bias take on the film but you would easily dismiss that. Instead I'll supply the following link describing what the High Court of Justice of England and Wales decided regarding the film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Educatio
n_and_Skills
In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views. The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns. On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To be fair, that's what we think about most American media
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Educatio
n_and_Skills
In response, the Government's counsel said that the guidance notes that accompanied the DVD of An Inconvenient Truth meant that the overall package was politically balanced. Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political and asking them for their views. The Government offered to modify the guidance notes to meet specific scientific concerns. On the last day of the hearing, 2 October, the judge announced that he would be saying in his formal written judgment that the film did promote "partisan political views" and teachers would have to inform pupils that there were other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film. However, he stated that "I will be declaring that, with the guidance as now amended, it will not be unlawful for the film to be shown."
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:THIS from the master of insults? Honestly, I don't anticipate discourse from you at all.
Not to quibble here but I said BEFORE a meaningful exchange occurs. I agree that I was being naughty by bringing up Gore, hence why I used the wink emoticon. If you had really been looking for high discourse I don't think you would have started off by being condesending and insulting in your response to me.
Quote:The "inconvenient truth" that you fail to mention.... the part right before the sentence that you quote, is... The court ruled that the film was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact. There were nine points in dispute in the film, of those, three are definitely wrong and the remainder are more correct than not according to the scientific consensus.
Teachers could present the film in any way they wished but could provide balance by explaining to pupils that some of Gore's views were political
The film is clearly a call for action. Does that make it "political"? I guess it is if you assume ANY call for action is political. In that view, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson would also be deemed "political", as would Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman. What I don't understand is the idea that this movie is somehow "partisan" i.e. supporting one political party over another. It's been a while since I saw the film; I wasn't particularly impressed with it but I didn't get the feeling that it was a Republican v Democrat film.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME