Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic.
It's reasonable to argue about what we do or even whether we do anything about climate change. Denying it's happening requires a conspiratard stupidity.
Bullshit. They had us writing letters to pen pals in Colombia because that is where we were all going to be moving in 15 years to be close to the equator. This was 1970-74 (this is grade school for me) and we were all going to starve to death before we all froze to death. We had one hour a day dedicated to global freezing and discussions about how we would survive. The 45 degree angled electric cars were the future and there were 2 different dealerships in Beaverton OR throughout the 70's. Any adult who suggested that there was no deep freeze headed our way were shouted down by the brilliant liberal elites.
I don't know where you were living but where I was it was complete indoctrination and it was dumbass liberals who shoved that bullshit down everyone's throat.
Really? Anyone else spend five years planning a move to Ecuador? I was in school during those years and I’m calling bullshit. This wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Head injury?
So your argument here is really not anything based on facts. Did I get that right? We know from me, others on here, the internet, etc, that there was liberal hysteria and "scientific proof" that there was a great deep freeze predicted and preached to the country in the late 60's and 70's but somehow you claim that there wasn't.
Got it.
For anyone who is interested, below is a short list of headlines that cite many pieces of "scientific research" from those great liberal "scientific" minds who claimed there was an oncoming Ice Age. You can either read them and educate yourself or you can do the liberal thing on here and deny the truth. As you can see these articles are from some of the most Conservative of sources such as the NY Times, WAPO, The Trib, LA Times, etc.
HH claims the great deep freeze was not on anyone's "radar". Clearly it was.
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
* A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper. And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Cool list bro, but even in the 1970s these were against the run of play. The warming effects of CO2 were noted in the 19th Century and by the late 1950s the scientific literature was overwhelmingly predicting global warming over the long run.
This is funny. So your original post was typical lib head up their ass dishonesty or complete ignorance. When you lost that argument you made this latest lame assed assertion that it was always REALLY about global warming from the 50's on anyway. My links prove otherwise.......again.
What next for you lib "science" deniers? You going to try to tell us that male XY chromosomes can switch over to XX by getting implants and wearing a skirt? Oh wait, you have already made that very un-scientific claim.
Your original post:
"Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic."
Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic.
It's reasonable to argue about what we do or even whether we do anything about climate change. Denying it's happening requires a conspiratard stupidity.
Bullshit. They had us writing letters to pen pals in Colombia because that is where we were all going to be moving in 15 years to be close to the equator. This was 1970-74 (this is grade school for me) and we were all going to starve to death before we all froze to death. We had one hour a day dedicated to global freezing and discussions about how we would survive. The 45 degree angled electric cars were the future and there were 2 different dealerships in Beaverton OR throughout the 70's. Any adult who suggested that there was no deep freeze headed our way were shouted down by the brilliant liberal elites.
I don't know where you were living but where I was it was complete indoctrination and it was dumbass liberals who shoved that bullshit down everyone's throat.
Really? Anyone else spend five years planning a move to Ecuador? I was in school during those years and I’m calling bullshit. This wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Head injury?
So your argument here is really not anything based on facts. Did I get that right? We know from me, others on here, the internet, etc, that there was liberal hysteria and "scientific proof" that there was a great deep freeze predicted and preached to the country in the late 60's and 70's but somehow you claim that there wasn't.
Got it.
For anyone who is interested, below is a short list of headlines that cite many pieces of "scientific research" from those great liberal "scientific" minds who claimed there was an oncoming Ice Age. You can either read them and educate yourself or you can do the liberal thing on here and deny the truth. As you can see these articles are from some of the most Conservative of sources such as the NY Times, WAPO, The Trib, LA Times, etc.
HH claims the great deep freeze was not on anyone's "radar". Clearly it was.
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
* A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper. And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Cool list bro, but even in the 1970s these were against the run of play. The warming effects of CO2 were noted in the 19th Century and by the late 1950s the scientific literature was overwhelmingly predicting global warming over the long run.
Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic.
It's reasonable to argue about what we do or even whether we do anything about climate change. Denying it's happening requires a conspiratard stupidity.
Bullshit. They had us writing letters to pen pals in Colombia because that is where we were all going to be moving in 15 years to be close to the equator. This was 1970-74 (this is grade school for me) and we were all going to starve to death before we all froze to death. We had one hour a day dedicated to global freezing and discussions about how we would survive. The 45 degree angled electric cars were the future and there were 2 different dealerships in Beaverton OR throughout the 70's. Any adult who suggested that there was no deep freeze headed our way were shouted down by the brilliant liberal elites.
I don't know where you were living but where I was it was complete indoctrination and it was dumbass liberals who shoved that bullshit down everyone's throat.
Really? Anyone else spend five years planning a move to Ecuador? I was in school during those years and I’m calling bullshit. This wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Head injury?
So your argument here is really not anything based on facts. Did I get that right? We know from me, others on here, the internet, etc, that there was liberal hysteria and "scientific proof" that there was a great deep freeze predicted and preached to the country in the late 60's and 70's but somehow you claim that there wasn't.
Got it.
For anyone who is interested, below is a short list of headlines that cite many pieces of "scientific research" from those great liberal "scientific" minds who claimed there was an oncoming Ice Age. You can either read them and educate yourself or you can do the liberal thing on here and deny the truth. As you can see these articles are from some of the most Conservative of sources such as the NY Times, WAPO, The Trib, LA Times, etc.
HH claims the great deep freeze was not on anyone's "radar". Clearly it was.
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
* A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper. And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Cool list bro, but even in the 1970s these were against the run of play. The warming effects of CO2 were noted in the 19th Century and by the late 1950s the scientific literature was overwhelmingly predicting global warming over the long run.
So, for the record, I work in Energy and do believe industrialization is/has contributed to global climate change. There are issues with the science (hi Economics!), how it gets funded, and how accurate predictive models are in low feedback multiple variable environments. That said, I see it as basic risk analysis. In the event that X(which may be likely) is true we should do Y to mitigate it even if we are unsure that it will happen.
We should be piling money into Energy R&D for a myriad of reasons that are complimentary to mitigating the possible threat of global warming.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
So, for the record, I work in Energy and do believe industrialization is/has contributed to global climate change. There are issues with the science (hi Economics!), how it gets funded, and how accurate predictive models are in low feedback multiple variable environments. That said, I see it as basic risk analysis. In the event that X(which may be likely) is true we should do Y to mitigate it even if we are unsure that it will happen.
We should be piling money into Energy R&D for a myriad of reasons that are complimentary to mitigating the possible threat of global warming.
We do find common ground. Look at that. I have no idea if the Earth is warmer due to humans. My biggest point, our planet is dirty from humans and we should clean it up. If the vast majority of scientists are wrong. Then the worst case is we have a cleaner planet.
For the record, Obama was a pussy on India and China and that's where the real progress needs to be made. If you want jobs back in America, the best way to do it is force those countries to comply with our pollution regulations.
So, for the record, I work in Energy and do believe industrialization is/has contributed to global climate change. There are issues with the science (hi Economics!), how it gets funded, and how accurate predictive models are in low feedback multiple variable environments. That said, I see it as basic risk analysis. In the event that X(which may be likely) is true we should do Y to mitigate it even if we are unsure that it will happen.
We should be piling money into Energy R&D for a myriad of reasons that are complimentary to mitigating the possible threat of global warming.
We do find common ground. Look at that. I have no idea if the Earth is warmer due to humans. My biggest point, our planet is dirty from humans and we should clean it up. If the vast majority of scientists are wrong. Then the worst case is we have a cleaner planet.
For the record, Obama was a pussy on India and China and that's where the real progress needs to be made. If you want jobs back in America, the best way to do it is force those countries to comply with our pollution regulations.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Climate science and study of global climate change is interesting and worthy. Climate Change has so much noise in the channel that I don't know quite what to think. I do know that climate systems are astonishingly complex.
Climate politics are a different matter. A politician saying the "Science is settled!" should be a clear sign to be skeptical. Science is rarely settled, and is better characterized by the persistent test and challenge of theories. Furthermore, government works best unto itself when it can establish a existential, imperative moral cause, best seen in wars. We all agree there are "bad guys" over there, give us the carte blanche to do what is necessary to win for the moral good, and get out of the way. Government can move very quickly when it's been given this moral license.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic.
It's reasonable to argue about what we do or even whether we do anything about climate change. Denying it's happening requires a conspiratard stupidity.
Bullshit. They had us writing letters to pen pals in Colombia because that is where we were all going to be moving in 15 years to be close to the equator. This was 1970-74 (this is grade school for me) and we were all going to starve to death before we all froze to death. We had one hour a day dedicated to global freezing and discussions about how we would survive. The 45 degree angled electric cars were the future and there were 2 different dealerships in Beaverton OR throughout the 70's. Any adult who suggested that there was no deep freeze headed our way were shouted down by the brilliant liberal elites.
I don't know where you were living but where I was it was complete indoctrination and it was dumbass liberals who shoved that bullshit down everyone's throat.
Really? Anyone else spend five years planning a move to Ecuador? I was in school during those years and I’m calling bullshit. This wasn’t on anyone’s radar. Head injury?
So your argument here is really not anything based on facts. Did I get that right? We know from me, others on here, the internet, etc, that there was liberal hysteria and "scientific proof" that there was a great deep freeze predicted and preached to the country in the late 60's and 70's but somehow you claim that there wasn't.
Got it.
For anyone who is interested, below is a short list of headlines that cite many pieces of "scientific research" from those great liberal "scientific" minds who claimed there was an oncoming Ice Age. You can either read them and educate yourself or you can do the liberal thing on here and deny the truth. As you can see these articles are from some of the most Conservative of sources such as the NY Times, WAPO, The Trib, LA Times, etc.
HH claims the great deep freeze was not on anyone's "radar". Clearly it was.
1978 – It’s Going To Get Colder (Boca Raton News, January 17, 1978)
1978 – Believe new ice age is coming (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 – The Coming Ice Age (In Search Of TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, Host: Leonard Nimoy, May 1978)
1978 – An Ice Age Is Coming Weather Expert Fears (Milwaukee Sentinel, November 17, 1978)
1979 – A Choice of Catastrophes – The Disasters That Threaten Our World [Book] (Isaac Asimov, 1979)
1979 – Get Ready to Freeze (Spokane Daily Chronicle, October 12, 1979)
1979 – New ice age almost upon us? (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)
* A couple of the news stories are duplicates in different papers with slightly different titles, this is intentional to show that these types of stories were not isolated to a certain regional paper. And from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:
Cool list bro, but even in the 1970s these were against the run of play. The warming effects of CO2 were noted in the 19th Century and by the late 1950s the scientific literature was overwhelmingly predicting global warming over the long run.
What part? About one of the preeminent Global Warming scientists spouting off about how the world was cooling and we needed to hoard food in the 1970s? Or how same said Stanford professor wrote an entire book on it quoting a bunch of other scientists supporting this theory? Or how the founder of the University of Wisconsin's Meteorology and Center for Climatic Research was telling the same story about Global Cooling?
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
There you go lying again. Almost all posters agree that the temp is changing. It has always changed and will continue to do so with or without people on earths surface. Where you politics and climate religionists lose people is when you get hysterical, demand trillions with zero accountability, come up with zero solutions, deny nuclear and NG as part of the solution and most damaging, you fuck with the data and then have extremists on your side shutting down any counter data or opinions that differ from yours. The latter being a sure sign that scientific research and the resulting data are not being reviewed and grant money rules the day.
Everyone welcomes alternative sources of energy and a cleaner environment but all the other political crap, globalization efforts and sunk trillions with no trace or accountability destroy any belief in what liberals are doing.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.
Conflation. I agree that man made global warming is possible. I don't agree we've got 12 years to fix it or that the science is "settled". Go see my other poasts. I'm pretty consistent on this topic.
Most of the "right" poasters are on board with the things I propose or at least aren't vehemently opposed to them. Is there anyone other than Mike Damone who is morally opposed to expanding federal funding of energy R&D?
Ironically, I have to fight tooth and nail to convince those on the left who wholeheartedly believe we've got 12 years left that then Nuclear is a viable option.
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.
Conflation. I agree that man made global warming is possible. I don't agree we've got 12 years to fix it or that the science is "settled". Go see my other poasts. I'm pretty consistent on this topic.
Most of the "right" poasters are on board with the things I propose or at least aren't vehemently opposed to them. Is there anyone other than Mike Damone who is morally opposed to expanding federal funding of energy R&D?
Ironically, I have to fight tooth and nail to convince those on the left who wholeheartedly believe we've got 12 years left that then Nuclear is a viable option.
Maybe we could have a show of hands for those who think we have 12 years left. I know Race jokes that he does, but is there a single soul on this bored who fits the caricature you are drawing?
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.
Conflation. I agree that man made global warming is possible. I don't agree we've got 12 years to fix it or that the science is "settled". Go see my other poasts. I'm pretty consistent on this topic.
Most of the "right" poasters are on board with the things I propose or at least aren't vehemently opposed to them. Is there anyone other than Mike Damone who is morally opposed to expanding federal funding of energy R&D?
Ironically, I have to fight tooth and nail to convince those on the left who wholeheartedly believe we've got 12 years left that then Nuclear is a viable option.
Maybe we could have a show of hands for those who think we have 12 years left. I know Race jokes that he does, but is there a single soul on this bored who fits the caricature you are drawing?
The religious and apocalyptic Left does little help to actually come up with real long term solutions to this. "12 years" is the perfect type of idiotic statement that makes the entire discussion so dismissable. IT IS religion and ideology when there is no room for pragmatism.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
Your prior post is quite rational. Yet here, you express no disdain for the poasters on the right who deny the basic premise that the Earth’s climate is changing, instead directing your fire only at those who actually agree with you.
Lol, look no further than the poast I made last week on renewables and the engineering challenges they face to see that "those who actually agree with me" are in short supply.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.
Conflation. I agree that man made global warming is possible. I don't agree we've got 12 years to fix it or that the science is "settled". Go see my other poasts. I'm pretty consistent on this topic.
Most of the "right" poasters are on board with the things I propose or at least aren't vehemently opposed to them. Is there anyone other than Mike Damone who is morally opposed to expanding federal funding of energy R&D?
Ironically, I have to fight tooth and nail to convince those on the left who wholeheartedly believe we've got 12 years left that then Nuclear is a viable option.
Maybe we could have a show of hands for those who think we have 12 years left. I know Race jokes that he does, but is there a single soul on this bored who fits the caricature you are drawing?
It's kind of funny that I don't remember your contributions to the threads on renewables and energy policy too...but here you are in a global warming thread.
Comments
What next for you lib "science" deniers? You going to try to tell us that male XY chromosomes can switch over to XX by getting implants and wearing a skirt? Oh wait, you have already made that very un-scientific claim.
Your original post:
"Anyone claiming there was some sustained concern that the earth was getting too cold in the 1970s is just lying or off his rocker. This shrill denial of science over what basically amounts to one magazine cover, circa 1972, is sort of pathetic."
Yes your claim truly was pathetic.
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html
We should be piling money into Energy R&D for a myriad of reasons that are complimentary to mitigating the possible threat of global warming.
Look no further than some of the poasters in this thread to see that they do more damage to the cause of moving the issue forward by arguing for it than they would if they just STFU.
For the record, Obama was a pussy on India and China and that's where the real progress needs to be made. If you want jobs back in America, the best way to do it is force those countries to comply with our pollution regulations.
Climate politics are a different matter. A politician saying the "Science is settled!" should be a clear sign to be skeptical. Science is rarely settled, and is better characterized by the persistent test and challenge of theories. Furthermore, government works best unto itself when it can establish a existential, imperative moral cause, best seen in wars. We all agree there are "bad guys" over there, give us the carte blanche to do what is necessary to win for the moral good, and get out of the way. Government can move very quickly when it's been given this moral license.
never mind, @UW_Doog_Bot is saying it better.
The alarmism is what has caused the boy who cried wolf of many on the right to be a mainstream position instead of a fringe.
Which part you talking about?
HondoFS...
Everyone welcomes alternative sources of energy and a cleaner environment but all the other political crap, globalization efforts and sunk trillions with no trace or accountability destroy any belief in what liberals are doing.
Most of the "right" poasters are on board with the things I propose or at least aren't vehemently opposed to them. Is there anyone other than Mike Damone who is morally opposed to expanding federal funding of energy R&D?
Ironically, I have to fight tooth and nail to convince those on the left who wholeheartedly believe we've got 12 years left that then Nuclear is a viable option.