RE: A question for conservatives.

RE: A question for conservatives. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DeviantlyD -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 4:21:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD Should I take your response to mean that you don't see environmental and atmospheric pollution as a detriment of the overall "health" of the planet? Or yes, but not to a great extent? Or? How about just taking it for what it said, instead of trying to ferret out some hidden meaning? K. We're clearly on two different pages here. The idea that I'm "trying to ferret out some hidden meaning" is not something that crossed my mind.

Kirata -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 5:02:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD We're clearly on two different pages here. The idea that I'm "trying to ferret out some hidden meaning" is not something that crossed my mind. Well you sure fooled me, because the post you inquired about had nothing to do with pollution. But then, I was giving you credit for having actually read the thread you were posting to. If you haven't, you'll find (among other things) that the answer to your question is here. K.

DomKen -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:14:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The problem with all libertarian and Randian nonsense of this sort is the obvious problem that everyone will not act in the best interests of mankind. The obvious problem with that statement is that libertarianism obviously doesnt assume they will. Then you agree libertarianism is obviously suicidal as a culture? Why do you support such ideas?

DomKen -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:18:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy "4) Why is cap and trade good enough for sulfur emissions, but not carbon dioxide emissions?" Because sulfur is actually harmful. So you're denying CO2 has any effect on climate? Care to explain how this can be true considering the enormous body of evidence showing that atmospheric mixes containing more CO2 and less N2 can absorb and retain more heat?

DomKen -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I really hate to break the news to you, but CO2 is a pollutant, in excessive amounts. That caveat, "in excessive amounts," gives it away... you know damn well you're squatting with your pants down. To "pollute" means to make foul or unclean. I'd say you're the one who's doing the polluting; polluting intelligent discourse with self-serving made up definitions. K. Did you know that much of the oceans coral is dying? Coral provides habitat for a significant part of the ocean ecosystem so if it dies a lot of other life goes with it. Why is the coral dying? Ocean acidification. Which is caused by the ocean water absorbing CO2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

DomKen -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I agree planting a tree is very nice. However, planting a tree actually contributes to global warming rather than reducing it. As it grows the tree sequesters CO2, but at the same time, the leaves strongly absorb radiation, and the tree evaporates large amounts of water vapor (stronger greenhouse gas than CO2) into the air. bullshit. The surface and subsurface water that a tree releases as water vapor all fell as rain, and fairly recently in most situations. The water cycle of precipitation and evaporation does not result in a net increase of H2O vapor. Human released CO2 mostly comes from fossil fuels. The carbon in this case has been sequestered from the biosphere for more than 300 million years.

ArizonaBossMan -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:37:24 AM)
As a conservative, I love trees. The logging businesses know they must too to survive. Algore is a dingbat, by the way. Pretty brilliant scam artist, though. Except that whole cap and trade nonsense is falling apart, costing ole algore the carbon footprint king billions. Remember with leftists, forget what they say; watch what they do. They always exempt themselves from their goofy rules and ideas. Just like al! Just like your Dear Leader, the peace prize winner.

TheHeretic -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 8:15:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Whether or not you believe the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence about climate change or not, what is wrong with taking steps to clean up the air, water and oceans? There's not a damn thing wrong with not fouling our nest, Jlf. However, there are serious things wrong with handing over control of how that happens to the power mad, anti-capitalist authoritarian freaks who have hijacked the environmental movement to promote their own, completely unrelated, socio-political agenda. I consider that a much larger threat to humanity in the short term than having to adapt to a changing climate.

eihwaz -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 8:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Whether or not you believe the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence about climate change or not, what is wrong with taking steps to clean up the air, water and oceans? There's not a damn thing wrong with not fouling our nest, Jlf. However, there are serious things wrong with handing over control of how that happens to the power mad, anti-capitalist authoritarian freaks who have hijacked the environmental movement to promote their own, completely unrelated, socio-political agenda. I consider that a much larger threat to humanity in the short term than having to adapt to a changing climate. A good, concise statement of the anti-AGW position. The problem is that the political question of how to respond gets conflated with the scientific question of whether global warming is a problem. Whether Al Gore is a dweeb is irrelevant to the science regarding global warning.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 9:33:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The problem with all libertarian and Randian nonsense of this sort is the obvious problem that everyone will not act in the best interests of mankind. The obvious problem with that statement is that libertarianism obviously doesnt assume they will. Then you agree libertarianism is obviously suicidal as a culture? Why do you support such ideas? I neither agree that its "suicidal" nor am I a libertarian.

TheHeretic -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 11:21:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Whether Al Gore is a dweeb is irrelevant to the science regarding global warning. True. Of course, the question I have about the science is different. We have this enormous set of data on what our climate has been up to lately, but what set of data from other periods of climate change do we have to compare it with? How old is the planet? How many times have the glaciers come down and covered today's more temperate latitudes, then retreated? And without any real idea of what normal looks like, the sky is falling? Really?

TheHeretic -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 11:26:11 AM)
There is a George Monbiot article worth giving a read here All of us in the environment movement, in other words – whether we propose accommodation, radical downsizing or collapse – are lost. None of us yet has a convincing account of how humanity can get out of this mess. None of our chosen solutions break the atomising, planet-wrecking project. I hope that by laying out the problem I can encourage us to address it more logically, to abandon magical thinking and to recognise the contradictions we confront. But even that could be a tall order.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 11:34:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Whether Al Gore is a dweeb is irrelevant to the science regarding global warning. True. Of course, the question I have about the science is different. We have this enormous set of data on what our climate has been up to lately, but what set of data from other periods of climate change do we have to compare it with? How old is the planet? How many times have the glaciers come down and covered today's more temperate latitudes, then retreated? And without any real idea of what normal looks like, the sky is falling? Really? Well, we do have lots of ice core data. Of course that shows that CO2 lags temperature increases, rather than precede them as they would if there were a causal relationship. So lets invent a new theory that CO2 doesnt CAUSE GW, it AMPLIFIES GW. But then when we politic it we'll ignore the fact that there has to be some intial CAUSE for some warming to be amplified, and that we don't have the foggiest idea how much warming is due to the initial cause, how much was amplified by CO2, and how much CO2 was actually caused by the warming, not the reverse. FACT: There have always been variations in temperature before manmade contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere, and no one has a fucking clue how something as complex as the climate reacts to changes in inputs yet.

lockedaway -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 11:50:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Whether or not you believe the OVERWHELMING scientific evidence about climate change or not, what is wrong with taking steps to clean up the air, water and oceans? What overwhelming evidence are you talking about? Are you talking about all of the discredited bullshit from the University of East Anglia? What overwhelming evidence do you have that suggests that global warming is a man made catastrophe rather than a normal, cyclical change? Ok...assuming global warming is a man made catastrophe, what is YOUR response to 500 million or more Chinese cooking and heating their homes with coal? How do you intend to change that? How do you intend to change the heating/cooling/transportation/industrial needs of....say....India??? You libs want things like cap and trade and you operate under the delusion that radical government control and confiscatory taxation will do something to improve the environment. It won't. It will just lead to a radically lower standard of living. You want to do something for the environment? Really? Ok...there are a number of solar companies that will install solar panels on your house or your trailer as the case may be. You get a 30% tax credit and, to a certain degree, you get to sell power back to the electric company. Why do I say to a certain degree? Well...my cousin dropped $120,000.00 on a solar system to make his house, essentially, a power station. But he has been FORBIDDEN to use his system until it has been inspected. The inspection keeps getting postponed....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....wonder what's up with that! You would think the town and the utility company would want to get him up and running just as soon as possible but that does NOT seem to be the case. Have you ever wondered why you can't put up your own windmill? Another friend wants to turn a 25 acre farm into a solar powered generating facility. The cost is 4 million. The energy company has already told him that they "refuse" to buy the electricity that he will generate. It is hard to come away from all of this feeling that the "energy crisis" and "global warming" is all just a sham; an excuse for greater taxation and regulation. Does it not stand to reason that if there was truly "global warming" and there was truly a shortage of energy, wouldn't people-----world wide------be encouraged by their governments to put up windmills and use solar panels? Try putting up a windmill in a residential neighborhood in the U.S. and count the minutes before Code Enforcement is up your ass with a summons book. You want clean air? It takes a pretty serious amount of coal to burn to create energy to run a community. But the resistance to people that REALLY want to invest in energy self sufficiency argues against a clean air problem that any government wants to seriously be addressed.

jlf1961 -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/5/2011 7:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz Whether Al Gore is a dweeb is irrelevant to the science regarding global warning. True. Of course, the question I have about the science is different. We have this enormous set of data on what our climate has been up to lately, but what set of data from other periods of climate change do we have to compare it with? How old is the planet? How many times have the glaciers come down and covered today's more temperate latitudes, then retreated? And without any real idea of what normal looks like, the sky is falling? Really? We know how often the temperate areas of the planet has been covered by ice sheets by a science known asPaleoclimatology which is the study of past climates through tree rings, ice cores and studies of the ocean sediments.

DeviantlyD -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/19/2011 3:19:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD We're clearly on two different pages here. The idea that I'm "trying to ferret out some hidden meaning" is not something that crossed my mind. Well you sure fooled me, because the post you inquired about had nothing to do with pollution. But then, I was giving you credit for having actually read the thread you were posting to. If you haven't, you'll find (among other things) that the answer to your question is here. K. No, I hadn't read the entire thread. Why? I simply didn't have the time or energy to do so. Would it help in responding to posts to do so? Yes. Is it necessary to have read the entire thread? No, because anyone has the freedom to not read or read as they choose. Simple. :)

thishereboi -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/19/2011 11:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD We're clearly on two different pages here. The idea that I'm "trying to ferret out some hidden meaning" is not something that crossed my mind. Well you sure fooled me, because the post you inquired about had nothing to do with pollution. But then, I was giving you credit for having actually read the thread you were posting to. If you haven't, you'll find (among other things) that the answer to your question is here. K. No, I hadn't read the entire thread. Why? I simply didn't have the time or energy to do so. Would it help in responding to posts to do so? Yes. Is it necessary to have read the entire thread? No, because anyone has the freedom to not read or read as they choose. Simple. :) You didn't have the time? It took you 2 weeks to respond to that post and in 2 weeks you didn't have 10 minutes to cruise through the thread. Interesting.

DeviantlyD -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/19/2011 3:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD We're clearly on two different pages here. The idea that I'm "trying to ferret out some hidden meaning" is not something that crossed my mind. Well you sure fooled me, because the post you inquired about had nothing to do with pollution. But then, I was giving you credit for having actually read the thread you were posting to. If you haven't, you'll find (among other things) that the answer to your question is here. K. No, I hadn't read the entire thread. Why? I simply didn't have the time or energy to do so. Would it help in responding to posts to do so? Yes. Is it necessary to have read the entire thread? No, because anyone has the freedom to not read or read as they choose. Simple. :) You didn't have the time? It took you 2 weeks to respond to that post and in 2 weeks you didn't have 10 minutes to cruise through the thread. Interesting. You missed the "or energy" part. ;)

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: A question for conservatives. (6/19/2011 5:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 1. There is no overwhelming evidence for A GW. I don't know anybody who doesnt think that there isnt ANY GW, just as I dont know anybody who doesnt think the earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles for billions of years. 2. It is not cheaper for a company to pollute if you hold them responsible for cleanup. 3. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up pollution. 4. There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations that avoid further pollution. 5. CO2 is not a pollutant. 1) 99.99999% of the scientists (that are NOT on the polluters payroll) wholeheartedly disagree with you. This climate change is definitely NOT cyclical. 2) True 3) Agreed 4) Agreed 5) This is a silly argument. CO2 is a natural part of our ecosystem. The problem is...When there is too much (more than the ecosystem can handle) that we have man made climate change.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02