If you want to understand why Global Warming is a religion...
Comments
-
It kinda looks like you and I agree more than we don’t. Shook?UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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.
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. -
Are we reading the same threads? I'm seeing a lot of the usual suspects cherry picking past hysterics from environmentalists and select climate scientists to distract from the very explicit scientific conclusion that climate change is occurring, and is very likely caused by human activity. Throw in some bad @Sledog memes, political cartoons, and pathetic counter arguments from Hondo that do nothing to help his cause, and that's the tug in a nutshell. This board doesn't even seem able to acknowledge the very basic premise that human activity has likely caused climate change.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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.
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.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It'd be nice if the discussion centered around questions like where do we go from here? Will our planet warm by a negligible amount or are we on course for life altering damage in the next 100 years? Is it economically feasible to enact policies that would materially stop climate change? Or is it not worth the economic damage to do so? Those are actual discussions worth having, but that's not going to happen if people continue to look for ways to avoid admitting that human driven climate change is real. -
I agree with this. The alarmism of the Al Gores of the world and anyone who attached their name to the green new deal has done nothing to advance the cause of addressing climate change. But that doesn't justify the fact that denial of human driven climate change has become a mainstream position on the right. That's shameful regardless of the hysterics of the opposition.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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. -
See, we can have common ground as well.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I agree with this. The alarmism of the Al Gores of the world and anyone who attached their name to the green new deal has done nothing to advance the cause of addressing climate change. But that doesn't justify the fact that denial of human driven climate change has become a mainstream position on the right. That's shameful regardless of the hysterics of the opposition.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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. -
I would consider you an "adult in the room" to have a conversation with. I do remember you contributing to the conversation. H, not so much.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I agree with this. The alarmism of the Al Gores of the world and anyone who attached their name to the green new deal has done nothing to advance the cause of addressing climate change. But that doesn't justify the fact that denial of human driven climate change has become a mainstream position on the right. That's shameful regardless of the hysterics of the opposition.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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.
As always, I mostly ignore Sled, Hondo, and others who I don't see the point in talking to. I don't spend a lot of time considering their opinions other than as an interesting window into a slice of political America. AKA let's not count whose team has the most retard cheerleaders. -
Your party is scared to death of the woman who said. Several of your candidates agreeHHusky said:
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?UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
The “alarmism” in this thread is about a position you have already said you agree with.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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.
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.
It's all yours -
In regard to the "science is settled" line I think there are different elements to that line. As to the question of do human emitted greenhouse gasses affect the climate that question has been answered by science and is now beyond a reasonable doubt "settled". As to pinpointing exactly how much and how much we need to cut in order to achieve a certain outcome that is largely still to be found.
-
"Science is settled" is political language. And your second sentence is essentially a tautology.GDS said:In regard to the "science is settled" line I think there are different elements to that line. As to the question of do human emitted greenhouse gasses affect the climate that question has been answered by science and is now beyond a reasonable doubt "settled". As to pinpointing exactly how much and how much we need to cut in order to achieve a certain outcome that is largely still to be found.
-
f(x) = log x vs. f(x) = x^n is kind of an important distinction wouldn't you say? Especially when shaping not just US but global policy.GDS said:In regard to the "science is settled" line I think there are different elements to that line. As to the question of do human emitted greenhouse gasses affect the climate that question has been answered by science and is now beyond a reasonable doubt "settled". As to pinpointing exactly how much and how much we need to cut in order to achieve a certain outcome that is largely still to be found.
-
I don’t read the Tug cover to cover even when I’m here. I don’t recall the thread you’re referring to.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I would consider you an "adult in the room" to have a conversation with. I do remember you contributing to the conversation. H, not so much.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I agree with this. The alarmism of the Al Gores of the world and anyone who attached their name to the green new deal has done nothing to advance the cause of addressing climate change. But that doesn't justify the fact that denial of human driven climate change has become a mainstream position on the right. That's shameful regardless of the hysterics of the opposition.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.HHusky said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
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.
As always, I mostly ignore Sled, Hondo, and others who I don't see the point in talking to. I don't spend a lot of time considering their opinions other than as an interesting window into a slice of political America. AKA let's not count whose team has the most retard cheerleaders.
