Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
9/17/2020 5:59:48 PM
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:31:55 AM EDT



Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker




Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).



Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.


Understood and noted, was just using one of the typical talking points



 
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:32:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 9:33:52 AM EDT by Cypselus]
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 9:42:51 AM EDT
I am to an extent an environmentalist as I believe we should take care of our environment and be good stewards of the Earth.
That being said these fuckers make me want to soccer punt baby harp seals into bonfires made out of Red Woods.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:01:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
So, are we back to sating global warming is not occurring?

How do I keep up?  Do you guys have a website?

Tits on a warthog the climate has been changing forever long before man ever stepped foot out of caves...
 


Has anyone suggested otherwise?


No, its just the argument about whether its bad or not, and whether government should intervene in something that's been going on for billions of years that gets people going...

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:03:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By madmathew:
Global Warming really has become a religion   Those people are nuts.


Just like big government ......

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:04:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
So, are we back to sating global warming is not occurring?

How do I keep up?  Do you guys have a website?

Tits on a warthog the climate has been changing forever long before man ever stepped foot out of caves...
 


Has anyone suggested otherwise?


No, its just the argument about whether its bad or not, and whether government should intervene in something that's been going on for billions of years that gets people going...



Natural or not, cycle or not, studying what is happening and identifying how it might effect us strikes me as reasonable.  Nobody studying climate change is ignorant of climate history, yet people suggest that here all the time.  Again, it just makes you sound ignorant.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:05:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Someone's forgetting a similar pattern back in 1974 that killed 250.  I don't recall climate change issues back then



WEll, that's because it was before Al Gore had it all figured out. Duh.....
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:06:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:08:41 AM EDT
meh, its the left.  fuck em.  
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:10:20 AM EDT



Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



Originally Posted By Kihn:


Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:




Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

So, are we back to sating global warming is not occurring?



How do I keep up?  Do you guys have a website?


Tits on a warthog the climate has been changing forever long before man ever stepped foot out of caves...

 




Has anyone suggested otherwise?




No, its just the argument about whether its bad or not, and whether government should intervene in something that's been going on for billions of years that gets people going...







Natural or not, cycle or not, studying what is happening and identifying how it might effect us strikes me as reasonable.  Nobody studying climate change is ignorant of climate history, yet people suggest that here all the time.  Again, it just makes you sound ignorant.


I think the problem is that people are confusing news media reports about climate science with actual climate science.



 
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:12:54 AM EDT
The dirty little secret is that environmentalism is very much religion to many statists/socialists. Of course there will be no outrage or endless stories about the intolerance of “fundamentalists.”
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:19:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.


People have predicted diasaters all of the time. The same thing that has been happening since forever. Tornadoes and hurricanes are not some new phenomena that has been quantified since the invention of climate change. What about all of the major hurricane strikes in the 60's? This is something that has been going on with regularity before the assignment of man made causes. So you position is that the government driven climate change science is accurate in describing man's affect on the weather? Anything that deviates from your normalcy bias of what is considered 'normal weather' is the result of global warming and climate change?

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:19:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ATLDiver:
The dirty little secret is that environmentalism is very much religion to many statists/socialists. Of course there will be no outrage or endless stories about the intolerance of “fundamentalists.”


While oft-repeated in American politics, and while there are political alliances between green parties and commies in Europe, the closest similarity I have come across to the modern American right's dismissive rhetoric about environmental threats, combined with push for more development, drilling, elimination of protected environmental zones, etc. is in Communist countries.

I think the reason for the link between green and red parties we see in the west is more due to the desire for the reds to undermine western economic growth and strength.

The folks who are equally worried about the environment in Russia and China as in the US, and who recognize and accept the plain facts that historically free societies have a better environmental track record, tend not to be very political, and are actually more what we would call "moderates."

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:20:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.


People have predicted diasaters all of the time. The same thing that has been happening since forever. Tornadoes and hurricanes are not some new phenomena that has been quantified since the invention of climate change. What about all of the major hurricane strikes in the 60's? This is something that has been going on with regularity before the assignment of man made causes. So you position is that the government driven climate change science is accurate in describing man's affect on the weather? Anything that deviates from your normalcy bias of what is considered 'normal weather' is the result of global warming and climate change?



No that is not my position.  I am simply asking you to have the intellectual integrity to not create strawmen.  Is that too much to ask?
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:23:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.


People have predicted diasaters all of the time. The same thing that has been happening since forever. Tornadoes and hurricanes are not some new phenomena that has been quantified since the invention of climate change. What about all of the major hurricane strikes in the 60's? This is something that has been going on with regularity before the assignment of man made causes. So you position is that the government driven climate change science is accurate in describing man's affect on the weather? Anything that deviates from your normalcy bias of what is considered 'normal weather' is the result of global warming and climate change?



No that is not my position.  I am simply asking you to have the intellectual integrity to not create strawmen.  Is that too much to ask?


Yeah well that might be working two ways.

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:24:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.


People have predicted diasaters all of the time. The same thing that has been happening since forever. Tornadoes and hurricanes are not some new phenomena that has been quantified since the invention of climate change. What about all of the major hurricane strikes in the 60's? This is something that has been going on with regularity before the assignment of man made causes. So you position is that the government driven climate change science is accurate in describing man's affect on the weather? Anything that deviates from your normalcy bias of what is considered 'normal weather' is the result of global warming and climate change?



No that is not my position.  I am simply asking you to have the intellectual integrity to not create strawmen.  Is that too much to ask?


Yeah well that might be working two ways.



No, it is not.  It is simply being honest about the debate and points of discussion.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:27:36 AM EDT



Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:





Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Originally Posted By kelone:


Originally Posted By raven:

Pat Robertson often justifies natural disasters according to his religious beliefs, the Lefties use their substitute for religion in much the same way.




Storms Kill Over 250 Americans In States Represented By Climate Pollution Deniers



The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.



http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/28/tornado-global-warming/



Not seeing where they are 'justifying' it.  Hurricane katrina was an 'act of God' in judgment on the New Orleans - because there was teh geys there.  

What the lefties appear to be saying is more along the lines of 'play stupid games...' - not that they can make the case that this weather is due to their reps preventing green energy salvation.

But it is a little different than claiming the south is being punished for immoral acts.  Unless someone was making the claim that it was all the gays vibrating in unison somehow pumping energy into the hurricane.




In other words, for all ther lunacy, the lefties actually are more logical?


It's sort of hard to be "less logical" than religious nutjobs.



The Left may not be "correct," but they have more substance than 2000 year old works of fiction.



- BG

 


Oh great, DU is here...





Anyway, tornadoes are a bad weather event that has always happened here, it's called "Spring", happens every year. But if they insist on playing this whacko game, I'll remind them of the outbreak in 1974 when 30 F4 & 6 F5s hit & 315 people died. That was back when the lefty nutjobs were proclaiming we were entering a new ice age that was going to kill us all and if you didn't believe them, you were ridiculed. Oh, and we caused the new ice age.



Instead looking for blame and finger pointing, now's the time to see how you can help someone in your nation that is suffering. Can't do that? Then shut the fuck up & go back to your parent's house so they can support you, you worthless piece of progressive dogshit. I hate cocksuckers that use disasters to promote their agendas.



 
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:28:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 10:36:31 AM EDT by Kihn]
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that it is  an accurate indicator of the  efficacy of climate change science than not. Is that right?
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:31:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kihn:
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that the climate change science is more of an accurate indicator of its efficacy than not. Is that right?


No, that is not what I said.  I said that an increase in such weather events was a component of the myriad of predictions made by the the proponents of global warming theory.

I mean, this is a written medium.  My words are still here.  All of them.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:35:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 10:46:38 AM EDT by Kihn]
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that the climate change science is more of an accurate indicator of its efficacy than not. Is that right?


No, that is not what I said.  I said that an increase in such weather events was a component of the myriad of predictions made by the the proponents of global warming theory.

I mean, this is a written medium.  My words are still here.  All of them.


But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.


Yes and some who have not. Al Gore made some outlandish predictions that he had to  revise in the not so distant past ("Global Warming" transition to the "Climate Change"). And he is the largest proponent of global warming theory (granted he lacks any real knowledge of the issue beyond his gut feelings).

Just because you have one successful prediction over a large range of time does not suggest it is true.

Has there not been some scientists involved in this arena who have come out and said that the science is dubious at best. We're talking about them changing their position here.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:36:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that the climate change science is more of an accurate indicator of its efficacy than not. Is that right?


No, that is not what I said.  I said that an increase in such weather events was a component of the myriad of predictions made by the the proponents of global warming theory.

I mean, this is a written medium.  My words are still here.  All of them.


Ok, so there's a correlation there, but is the science predictive?  That's the question that most interests me.  
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:38:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Natural or not, cycle or not, studying what is happening and identifying how it might effect us strikes me as reasonable.  Nobody studying climate change is ignorant of climate history, yet people suggest that here all the time.  Again, it just makes you sound ignorant.


Good thing we have you around standing by to correct us all.

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:45:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Range_Officer:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that the climate change science is more of an accurate indicator of its efficacy than not. Is that right?


No, that is not what I said.  I said that an increase in such weather events was a component of the myriad of predictions made by the the proponents of global warming theory.

I mean, this is a written medium.  My words are still here.  All of them.


Ok, so there's a correlation there, but is the science predictive?  That's the question that most interests me.  


There are far too many variables and many competing computer models to predict an individual storm.  The "big idea" predictions, though, are pretty well-agreed on.  This is all aggregate stuff, though, so specific storms, etc, would not be predictable.  On the whole though, as I understand it, the events are supposed to increase as temperatures rise (predictions that hold out in modeling regardless of whether the temps are rising from CO2 in the air, sunspots, or Al Gore's breath).  It's the CO2, though, that most accounts for observations of the last 20 years, which is where the anthropogenic argument kicks in.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 10:55:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Kihn:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Kihn:
You said someone successfully predicting an increase in the number and severity of tornadoes in a single season  implies that the climate change science is more of an accurate indicator of its efficacy than not. Is that right?


No, that is not what I said.  I said that an increase in such weather events was a component of the myriad of predictions made by the the proponents of global warming theory.

I mean, this is a written medium.  My words are still here.  All of them.


But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.


Yes and some who have not. Al Gore made some outlandish predictions that he had to  revise in the not so distant past ("Global Warming" transition to the "Climate Change"). And he is the largest proponent of global warming theory (granted he lacks any real knowledge of the issue beyond his gut feelings).

Just because you have one successful prediction over a large range of time does not suggest it is true.

Has there not been some scientists involved in this arena who have come out and said that the science is dubious at best. We're talking about them changing there position here.


Let's change the topic entirely.

Let's say we believe their is a global terrorist conspiracy to bring down the US and the west and install a global caliphate.

One of the predictions we might make is a rise in individual terrorist incidents, as terrorist propaganda spreads through mosques and internet networks, appealing to a certain segment of society.

If some nut were to scream "Allah Akhbar" and drive his car into a crowd of people, is it unreasonable to say "see, I told you this kind of stuff would happen?"

Is it not equally unreasonable for someone claiming there is no terrorist threat to dismiss it as an isolated incident, and make some snide comment about how a car accident is not exactly the nuclear bomb in DC you have been fear mongering about?  On top of that, they might add a, "How dare you try to blame this on international terrorism when there are people injured and we need to focus on that and take care of these victims."  

The truth is, it might be an isolated incident.  However, it does not render invalid the simple fact that you had predicted these things.  It also gives you no special right or privilege to blame the victims for their own fate (to extend this metaphor, this "blame the victim to score political points" is another thing we see in GD a lot, when these things happen in certain cities or countries).
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:10:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/29/2011 11:11:55 AM EDT by tep0583]


Jesus, SO this.......

"Enlightened" my ass.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:15:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By ATLDiver:
The dirty little secret is that environmentalism is very much religion to many statists/socialists. Of course there will be no outrage or endless stories about the intolerance of “fundamentalists.”


While oft-repeated in American politics, and while there are political alliances between green parties and commies in Europe, the closest similarity I have come across to the modern American right's dismissive rhetoric about environmental threats, combined with push for more development, drilling, elimination of protected environmental zones, etc. is in Communist countries.

I think the reason for the link between green and red parties we see in the west is more due to the desire for the reds to undermine western economic growth and strength.

The folks who are equally worried about the environment in Russia and China as in the US, and who recognize and accept the plain facts that historically free societies have a better environmental track record, tend not to be very political, and are actually more what we would call "moderates."



Care to explain away Van Jones, Carol Browner, Susan Rice, etc? It's a documented fact that the left in America/Canada and most of W. Europe, use the 'green' movement to sell socialism.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:18:49 AM EDT



Originally Posted By WileyG27:





Originally Posted By BUCC_Guy:




Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Originally Posted By kelone:


Originally Posted By raven:

Pat Robertson often justifies natural disasters according to his religious beliefs, the Lefties use their substitute for religion in much the same way.




Storms Kill Over 250 Americans In States Represented By Climate Pollution Deniers



The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.



http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/28/tornado-global-warming/



Not seeing where they are 'justifying' it.  Hurricane katrina was an 'act of God' in judgment on the New Orleans - because there was teh geys there.  

What the lefties appear to be saying is more along the lines of 'play stupid games...' - not that they can make the case that this weather is due to their reps preventing green energy salvation.

But it is a little different than claiming the south is being punished for immoral acts.  Unless someone was making the claim that it was all the gays vibrating in unison somehow pumping energy into the hurricane.




In other words, for all ther lunacy, the lefties actually are more logical?


It's sort of hard to be "less logical" than religious nutjobs.



The Left may not be "correct," but they have more substance than 2000 year old works of fiction.



- BG

 


Oh great, DU is here...





Anyway, tornadoes are a bad weather event that has always happened here, it's called "Spring", happens every year. But if they insist on playing this whacko game, I'll remind them of the outbreak in 1974 when 30 F4 & 6 F5s hit & 315 people died. That was back when the lefty nutjobs were proclaiming we were entering a new ice age that was going to kill us all and if you didn't believe them, you were ridiculed. Oh, and we caused the new ice age.



Instead looking for blame and finger pointing, now's the time to see how you can help someone in your nation that is suffering. Can't do that? Then shut the fuck up & go back to your parent's house so they can support you, you worthless piece of progressive dogshit. I hate cocksuckers that use disasters to promote their agendas.

 


I should be balls-deep in a disaster zone by Tuesday.  I assume I'll be seeing you there?



- BG



 
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:18:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ATLDiver:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By ATLDiver:
The dirty little secret is that environmentalism is very much religion to many statists/socialists. Of course there will be no outrage or endless stories about the intolerance of “fundamentalists.”


While oft-repeated in American politics, and while there are political alliances between green parties and commies in Europe, the closest similarity I have come across to the modern American right's dismissive rhetoric about environmental threats, combined with push for more development, drilling, elimination of protected environmental zones, etc. is in Communist countries.

I think the reason for the link between green and red parties we see in the west is more due to the desire for the reds to undermine western economic growth and strength.

The folks who are equally worried about the environment in Russia and China as in the US, and who recognize and accept the plain facts that historically free societies have a better environmental track record, tend not to be very political, and are actually more what we would call "moderates."



Care to explain away Van Jones, Carol Browner, Susan Rice, etc? It's a documented fact that the left in America/Canada and most of W. Europe, use the 'green' movement to sell socialism.


I just said that.  Those people are hardly moderates, and also tend to gloss over the environmental disaster that is Russia and China.

It is simply disingenuous though, to suggest ALL people who are concerned about the environment are in bed with socialists.  A common rhetorical device in politics is to take the extreme end of a bell curve, and pitch it to the other end of the curve as representative of the middle.  While often effective, it is rarely accurate.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:21:15 AM EDT



Originally Posted By ATLDiver:



Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


Originally Posted By ATLDiver:

The dirty little secret is that environmentalism is very much religion to many statists/socialists. Of course there will be no outrage or endless stories about the intolerance of "fundamentalists.”




While oft-repeated in American politics, and while there are political alliances between green parties and commies in Europe, the closest similarity I have come across to the modern American right's dismissive rhetoric about environmental threats, combined with push for more development, drilling, elimination of protected environmental zones, etc. is in Communist countries.



I think the reason for the link between green and red parties we see in the west is more due to the desire for the reds to undermine western economic growth and strength.



The folks who are equally worried about the environment in Russia and China as in the US, and who recognize and accept the plain facts that historically free societies have a better environmental track record, tend not to be very political, and are actually more what we would call "moderates."







Care to explain away Van Jones, Carol Browner, Susan Rice, etc? It's a documented fact that the left in America/Canada and most of W. Europe, use the 'green' movement to sell socialism.


The anti-capitalist slant helps both the Greens and the Reds.



Small factoid (ok, maybe a "tidbit" at best):  The Greens are the only political party in Western politics that are against economic expansion.  Even the Commies aren't that backwards.



 
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:24:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
There are far too many variables and many competing computer models to predict an individual storm.  The "big idea" predictions, though, are pretty well-agreed on.


This is where you and I disagree I suppose.  It seems you are saying the science is settled and I would contend that it isn't.

No reason to derail this thread further on that point.  It's been covered enough in GD.

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:28:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
I thought weather wasn't climate change......ya fucker


Seriously, have any of you even bothered to read what the climate change people have been saying for 30+ years?  90% of the posts in these threads are always complete strawmen.  One of the predictions made by the models is an increase in severe storms and changing weather patterns.  A related huge concern was more rain in wet areas, and less rain in dry areas.  Another was more and stronger hurricanes (remember the whining about Katrina being caused by global warming?).

Dispute the facts and evidence all you want, but at least have a clue what they are saying and predicting, or you sound uneducated and merely reinforce the left's stereotypes.

What a warming climate will do to tropical storms is still a matter of debate.  It is one of those areas where the science is unsettled, the continual misrepresentations of the deniers regarding claims by climate scientists that "the science is settled" notwithstanding.  Some things are settled, others aren't.  Attribution of single weather events to long term processes is fraught with uncertainty.


I never said otherwise.  But there are some who have predicted more tornadoes.  So, to say that these people are idiots for not knowing tornadoes are weather events, not climate events, makes someone look ignorant.

Oh, agreed.  I just want to keep clear the distinction between what climate scientists are saying and what non-scientists of whatever persuasion say about climate science and scientists.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:31:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Range_Officer:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
There are far too many variables and many competing computer models to predict an individual storm.  The "big idea" predictions, though, are pretty well-agreed on.


This is where you and I disagree I suppose.  It seems you are saying the science is settled and I would contend that it isn't.

No reason to derail this thread further on that point.  It's been covered enough in GD.



Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

Link Posted: 4/29/2011 11:46:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Range_Officer:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
There are far too many variables and many competing computer models to predict an individual storm.  The "big idea" predictions, though, are pretty well-agreed on.


This is where you and I disagree I suppose.  It seems you are saying the science is settled and I would contend that it isn't.

No reason to derail this thread further on that point.  It's been covered enough in GD.



Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?



Uh...I said "it seems".  So what you are saying is that there is a consensus, but that you don't agree with it?  I'm not putting words in your mouth now nor have I before so I'm a bit confused about the "keep" part there.

I'm just trying to understand where you're at, not argue with you.
Link Posted: 4/29/2011 12:04:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Range_Officer:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By Range_Officer:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
There are far too many variables and many competing computer models to predict an individual storm.  The "big idea" predictions, though, are pretty well-agreed on.


This is where you and I disagree I suppose.  It seems you are saying the science is settled and I would contend that it isn't.

No reason to derail this thread further on that point.  It's been covered enough in GD.



Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?



Uh...I said "it seems".  So what you are saying is that there is a consensus, but that you don't agree with it?  I'm not putting words in your mouth now nor have I before so I'm a bit confused about the "keep" part there.

I'm just trying to understand where you're at, not argue with you.


There is consensus among those who study this stuff.  I do not study this stuff, nor do I really have an opinion either way.  I think it needs to be further studied, which is why I support climate change research.  

It seems clear, though, that the internet is filled with people who have very strong opinions, despite not knowing a fraction of what the argument even is.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Top Top