quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine


In the short term, the fossil fuel industry stands to lose its entire livelihood if the facts that are accepted by every climatologist, meteorologist and geographer in the world were to be accepted by politicians. That's more than enough reason for them to have poured money for the last twenty years into creating the fiction that there is "doubt" on the issue. In fact, the only scientific doubt is whether there is still a chance to save things, or if the politicians and their paymasters have already screwed us all beyond repair.

In the long term, anyone who needs food to eat and water to drink stands to lose big time if we just go on as if we didn't know better. If that's not you, you can afford to be neutral on the subject.

Excuse this brief intrusion of facts. Feel free to return to your regularly scheduled political squabble.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

http://www.examiner.com/article/house-democrats-claim-global-warming-will-drive-women-to-prostitution

quote:


A resolution put forward by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and a dozen other House Democrats claims that global warming could drive women to prostitution, The Hill reported Monday.

According to Democrats, climate change will affect women worse than men and could force poor women into the sex trade.

Hmm. So back to commuting in the SUV then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion.

Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard.

Are you, Ken, heavily invested or heavily speculating in carbon credits? What about the technologies that will be hurt by AGW legislation? I know I don't fall into either category, sooooo, I'm one of those that don't stand to gain/lose from AGW legislation.

We all stand to lose or gain from AGW. Even if you don't believe it threatens human civilization it will still cause more violent weather and cause food shortages which will at least drive up food prices.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion.

Who precisely does not stand to lose or gain from AGW? You're setting an impossible standard.

Are you, Ken, heavily invested or heavily speculating in carbon credits? What about the technologies that will be hurt by AGW legislation? I know I don't fall into either category, sooooo, I'm one of those that don't stand to gain/lose from AGW legislation.

We all stand to lose or gain from AGW. Even if you don't believe it threatens human civilization it will still cause more violent weather and cause food shortages which will at least drive up food prices.

Not going to answer the question, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Answer what question? The nonsense about being invested in stuff? No. My retirement funds hold both some oil stocks and some alt energy stocks but nothing major in either.
But as other have pointed out we all stand to gain or lose if AGW is/is not dealt with.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Answer what question? The nonsense about being invested in stuff? No. My retirement funds hold both some oil stocks and some alt energy stocks but nothing major in either.
But as other have pointed out we all stand to gain or lose if AGW is/is not dealt with.

So, essentially, you have the same basic level of investment in the legislation that the common person has. You don't have any large risk of gain/loss than the average schlub.

Thus... you have little taint to your credibility...

Neat how that shit works, innit?

quote:

This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Answer what question? The nonsense about being invested in stuff? No. My retirement funds hold both some oil stocks and some alt energy stocks but nothing major in either.
But as other have pointed out we all stand to gain or lose if AGW is/is not dealt with.

So, essentially, you have the same basic level of investment in the legislation that the common person has. You don't have any large risk of gain/loss than the average schlub.
Thus... you have little taint to your credibility...
Neat how that shit works, innit?

But that isn't what you said.

quote:

This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Answer what question? The nonsense about being invested in stuff? No. My retirement funds hold both some oil stocks and some alt energy stocks but nothing major in either.
But as other have pointed out we all stand to gain or lose if AGW is/is not dealt with.

So, essentially, you have the same basic level of investment in the legislation that the common person has. You don't have any large risk of gain/loss than the average schlub.
Thus... you have little taint to your credibility...
Neat how that shit works, innit?

But that isn't what you said.

quote:

This is not an excuse to disengage from meaningful discussions on anything (and this same line of reasoning pertains to everything). I'd much rather have people who stand to neither gain nor lose to lead the discussion.

Really? That's the bullshit you're going to pull now? Have it your way.

Enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

you have little taint to your credibility...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
you have little taint to your credibility...

There are some who would disagree strongly with that, DS...
Don't be led into distraction, regarding the climate change discussion. What we have here is an effort to use climate change to advance a social agenda that is completely unrelated to what gets pumped into our atmosphere.
It isn't all that different from the South Pacific islands who've sent delegations seeking reparations for hypothetical future damages to an economy that would have never existed in the first place, without the technological culture which has brought us here.
What are carbon credits, if not a whole new commodity, exclusively held by the wealthy, created quite literally out of thin air?
The climate on our planet changes. It has been doing so throughout recorded human history, and for billions of years before our species joined the scene. We're a slightly clever species, and have figured out a little bit of how that works, but our understanding is far from complete. How many times, since this theory was brought forward, have the forecasts and models, and the very terminology of the holy crusade been modified? Even if we had a perfect understanding of the whole picture, a hell of a lot of it would be remain totally beyond our ability to influence. I'll expand on this in a later post.
It doesn't take a string of letters in the sciences after your name though, to figure out that all the crap we release into the atmosphere can ultimately affect the balances.
When it comes to reducing that, the problem for me comes with the forces which have hijacked the movement towards their own profit, or as the latest avenue of demanding changes to our social structure that have nothing whatsoever to do with the climate. And the members of the AGW cult fucking well embraced these hi-powered hijackers, and happily suck their dicks, or they would be denouncing this bitch from CA, and every other political whore signing on to her nonsense.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Don't be led into distraction, regarding the climate change discussion. What we have here is an effort to use climate change to advance a social agenda that is completely unrelated to what gets pumped into our atmosphere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Proof of nothing, but we're going to have record lows the next 3 days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

If you really want to get into the meat of what the California Democrat fucktards are after, it's seeking to put gender-specific affirmative action requirements into studies and planning that would theoretically be best done by the best qualified, not the best qualified, who also meet the politically correct hiring and planning goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Prostitution is one of the world's oldest trades, and we legalized it many years ago. I doubt many women are "driven" to it as claimed, any more the people are driven to farm work or any other profession or trade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

Prostitution is one of the world's oldest trades, and we legalized it many years ago. I doubt many women are "driven" to it as claimed, any more the people are driven to farm work or any other profession or trade.

A lot of prostitutes are for-real non-consensual slaves, and many others do it out of desperation because they're poor or addicted to drugs. Even in places where it's legal. So yes, many women are driven to it, or worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do California Democrats really hire a lot of food-insecure peasant farmers in Third World countries to do planning studies for them?