quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng.

http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full

Ken.....whether they're right or whether they're wrong.........why does it matter?

Sunspots/crazy fucks/magnetic fields changing....who the fuck cares?

In 1917, there was an article about ice fields changing in the antarctic.

Getting warmer....fewer iceflows...the world is ending.

Who gives a fuck.

We CAN do BETTER!!!

End of topic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113141500661590763

You really should read stuff other than leftist pap. I don't say you have to accept it. But, you should be aware of it and most of your main stream media is leftist intentionally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113141500661590763

You really should read stuff other than leftist pap. I don't say you have to accept it. But, you should be aware of it and most of your main stream media is leftist intentionally.

Just another way to hasten the collapse of the United States. Drive the cost of energy as high as possible, which hurts everyone in every sector. Enact onerous environmental regulations that ship any remaining industry over to China (which is building massive new coal plants at a frantic pace)

Most of our industry is already gone, but thats not good enough

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.

First off, Peon, a little semantics. The leftist Green Movement abandoned "Global Warming" some years ago. So, that's a dinosaur you're beating. It's now "Climate Change". Nobody I know denies the climate changes. It's done that for ever and will continue to do so. The thing about that is, we fucking haven't a clue about what drives it. So the entire idea that man is now driving it and we have to make power so expensive the industrial nations have to become third world in nature and transfer untold wealth to current third world countries, to make things "equal" for them is what we are discussing.

Frankly, I'm willing to have that discussion if its an honest one. But, currently it's not. I will resist massive economic wealth transfer in the name of something we don't understand until there is an honest discussion, and/or we actually understand the science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.

First off, Peon, a little semantics. The leftist Green Movement abandoned "Global Warming" some years ago. So, that's a dinosaur you're beating. It's now "Climate Change". Nobody I know denies the climate changes. It's done that for ever and will continue to do so. The thing about that is, we fucking haven't a clue about what drives it. So the entire idea that man is now driving it and we have to make power so expensive the industrial nations have to become third world in nature and transfer untold wealth to current third world countries, to make things "equal" for them is what we are discussing.

Frankly, I'm willing to have that discussion if its an honest one. But, currently it's not. I will resist massive economic wealth transfer in the name of something we don't understand until there is an honest discussion, and/or we actually understand the science.

Firstly, it isn't a 'leftist' movement. This is poppycock. Modern environmentalism started, in the late 1960s, as a movement that implied authoritarian, basically right wing solutions that flew in the face of libertarianism and progressivism. Secondly, 'global warming' is in fact still a current phrase amongst environmentalists. It's not been done away with in favour of the phrase 'climate change' just in order to be 'politically correct', as I suspect you believe. It's just been taken up because it's a more accurate phrase. Secondly, yes, we do indeed have more than a clue about what's driving it. The vast majority of climatologists agree that anthroprogenic global warming is creating the danger factor. Only a few extremists - on the *very* far right deny this.

So, let's have a discussion, by all means. But before we do this, you'll have to accept that the 'denying' position is an *extreme* position. It is *not* a 'moderately conservative', eschew-the-trendy-ideology, 'let's be balanced between two equal scientific positions' view. Amongst all first world countries, only in the USA has the deniers' propaganda been so highly-financed, loud and downright bellicose that AGW-denying has come to be seen as 'moderately conservative'. Having accepted that, you'll understand why I could only have the briefest of patience with your views which, as I have said, are those of an *extremist*. Because, of course, it does not matter that they're considered just 'moderately conservative' in your country: in the context of the world as a whole they're loopily right wing.

So, all that said, Hunter, go ahead and defend your extremist position, by all means - but, in so doing, and re your demand for 'honesty' in this discussion, you'll have to, in the process, make it clear that you're *at the very least* able to accept that that your view is, in fact, an extreme one. Because, if you can't even do that, then I'll have no choice but to assume that you're so stuffed full of rightist propaganda of a peculiarly American flavour that's there's no point in talking to you.

I hope we're clear on the ground rules here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming.

I really wish people would buy less into the far more massive hype surrounding the denial of global warming.

First off, Peon, a little semantics. The leftist Green Movement abandoned "Global Warming" some years ago. So, that's a dinosaur you're beating. It's now "Climate Change". Nobody I know denies the climate changes. It's done that for ever and will continue to do so. The thing about that is, we fucking haven't a clue about what drives it. So the entire idea that man is now driving it and we have to make power so expensive the industrial nations have to become third world in nature and transfer untold wealth to current third world countries, to make things "equal" for them is what we are discussing.

Frankly, I'm willing to have that discussion if its an honest one. But, currently it's not. I will resist massive economic wealth transfer in the name of something we don't understand until there is an honest discussion, and/or we actually understand the science.

Firstly, it isn't a 'leftist' movement. This is poppycock. Modern environmentalism started, in the late 1960s, as a movement that implied authoritarian, basically right wing solutions that flew in the face of libertarianism and progressivism. Secondly, 'global warming' is in fact still a current phrase amongst environmentalists. It's not been done away with in favour of the phrase 'climate change' just in order to be 'politically correct', as I suspect you believe. It's just been taken up because it's a more accurate phrase. Secondly, yes, we do indeed have more than a clue about what's driving it. The vast majority of climatologists agree that anthroprogenic global warming is creating the danger factor. Only a few extremists - on the *very* far right deny this.

So, let's have a discussion, by all means. But before we do this, you'll have to accept that the 'denying' position is an *extreme* position. It is *not* a 'moderately conservative', eschew-the-trendy-ideology, 'let's be balanced between two equal scientific positions' view. Amongst all first world countries, only in the USA has the deniers' propaganda been so highly-financed, loud and downright bellicose that AGW-denying has come to be seen as 'moderately conservative'. Having accepted that, you'll understand why I could only have the briefest of patience with your views which, as I have said, are those of an *extremist*. Because, of course, it does not matter that they're considered just 'moderately conservative' in your country: in the context of the world as a whole they're loopily right wing.

So, all that said, Hunter, go ahead and defend your extremist position, by all means - but, in so doing, and re your demand for 'honesty' in this discussion, you'll have to, in the process, make it clear that you're *at the very least* able to accept that that your view is, in fact, an extreme one. Because, if you can't even do that, then I'll have no choice but to assume that you're so stuffed full of rightist propaganda of a peculiarly American flavour that's there's no point in talking to you.

I hope we're clear on the ground rules here.

quote:

The first piece of legislation to lay down federal regulation of water quality, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is passed by Congress. This act, known as the FWPCA , will go through amendments in 1956, 1965, and 1972 to broaden the government’s authority in water pollution control.

quote:


New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most presidential elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963. By 1936 the term "liberal" typically was used for supporters of the New Deal, and

quote:




Public Domain

A worker sprays DDT to kill mosquitoes.
September 1949
Paul Ehrlich (future author of The Population Bomb) enters the University of Pennsylvania and studies zoology. He notes the disappearance of butterflies in New Jersey, which he attributes to the spraying of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) during the building of subdivisions. The shrinking population of butterflies leads Ehrlich to think about potential similar repercussions in the human population.

quote:

February 1953: A Growing Public Awareness
The Silent World by Jacques Cousteau introduces the world to underwater adventure, and ushers in a new global interest in oceanic life. In 1956, Cousteau’s documentary film of the same title will win the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.

quote:



July 14, 1955
The Air Pollution Control Act passes Congress, becoming the first piece of legislation to address air pollution. Despite its declaration to combat air contamination, the act puts regulation largely in the hands of individual states and gives no means of enforcement to the federal government.

quote:





Getty Images

Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring.
June 1962: "Silent Spring"
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is published. Acclaimed as the catalyst of the modern environmental movement, Silent Springcondemns the overuse of pesticides. Between 1950-1962 the amount of DDT found in human tissue had tripled.

After the chemical industry denounces Carson’s book as a “gross distortion of actual facts,” President John F. Kennedy charges his Science Advisory Committee to review the book’s claims. The Committee reports that the conclusions in Silent Spring are generally correct, and by 1972 DDT will be banned in the U.S.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

Not going to do your research. But I'll get you started.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/


http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/27/un-climate-change-plan-would-likely-shift-trillions-to-form-new-world-economy.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global_warming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Show me an actual "Marxist" policy/law in the States, concerning the environment, so that I can know what we're arguing.

I don't buy into all of the hype surrounding man-made global warming. But I don't have to in order to be environmentally conscious, and know that man has damaged and poisoned the Earth in various ways through the years, from lead fuels to muck farms and DDT. Laws & regulations aren't always so bad.

Not going to do your research. But I'll get you started.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/


http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/03/27/un-climate-change-plan-would-likely-shift-trillions-to-form-new-world-economy.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/28/george_will_global_warming_is_socialism_by_the_back_door.html

It's really hard to do research when I have no freakin clue wtf you're talking about using generic "trigger" words like Marxist.

I do see the possibility of those in power using scare tactics to control the population (see Patriot Act) or to justify actions that would otherwise not hold up to public scrutiny (Iraq), but that's not limited to the left, obviously.

I'm also not a huge fan of the UN. It's great in theory, but most theories are great until they're put into place.

quote:


Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism,” the document also states. The new government, led by conservative-leaning Prime Minister Tony Abbott (shown), also explicitly declared that it would not make any payments or accept any liabilities as part of any potential new UN global warming agreement. That means Australia will refuse to play “any role in a wealth transfer from rich countries to developing nations to pay them to decrease their carbon emissions,” the paper reported.

quote:

In addition, the poorer nations of the world are also unlikely to abide by any agreement that does not bind richer nations to a massive wealth transfer aimed at assisting their development of dams and levees to guard against coastal flooding from rising seas, or provide food aid during droughts that are invariably attributed to global warming.

quote:



A deal that would not need to be ratified by the United States or any other nation is also drawing fire from the world’s poorest countries. In African and low-lying island nations — places that scientists say are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — officials fear that any agreement made outside the structure of a traditional United Nations treaty will not bind rich countries to spend billions of dollars to help developing nations deal with the forces of climate change.

quote:



What are the inducements that India and China are demanding for themselves and the rest of the developing world? There are at least two. First is money — at least enough to offset the increased cost of energy for their economies. Given that China recently became the biggest single source of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, this could be an unprecedented wealth transfer from the West to China alone. Then throw in India and the rest of the developing world. That simply isn’t going to be agreed to by the United States and the European Union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Global socialism? You don't think that's already happening because of labor policies?

Companies go overseas to manufacture and to escape taxation and higher labor costs here, but they're still paying something in whatever country they land in. Strengthening the economy of China, India, or BumfuckEgypt, instead of the US.

quote:

(e) Deployment of cost-effective smart technologies, including real time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Do you see, and can you further research on your own, that socialism is driving global warming.

Laughable stuff Hunter, fucking laughable stuff, even by your low standards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Do you see, and can you further research on your own, that socialism is driving global warming.

Laughable stuff Hunter, fucking laughable stuff, even by your low standards.

Really, you didn't see the legislation passed in California that was exactly what I said. Hum, you really don't read anything or follow a thread do you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Do you see, and can you further research on your own, that socialism is driving global warming.

Laughable stuff Hunter, fucking laughable stuff, even by your low standards.

Really, you didn't see the legislation passed in California that was exactly what I said. Hum, you really don't read anything or follow a thread do you?

Please forgive me, I thought when you said Global Warming and Socialism you were talking abpout the bigger picture. I simply forgot you were small minded.

Do you wish to debate the current Tory Governments position on Global warming (an argument you ducked previously) or are they just Socialists as well ?