What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
Your problem is you don't understand what the scientist agree on. They agree that climate change is occurring and man-made CO2 is at least partially to blame. They don't know how much or how serious it is. There is a lot of political rhetoric on both sides which confuses the issue on what is known and what is not known. Most of the fear-mongering is not scientific concensous but the opinion of that person. Going around calling everyone 'deniers' (which you know is a politically charged term which has Nazi implications) who dare question any of the fear-mongering propaganda is not helping the issue.

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
Tim, 90 percent of scientist don't agree with everything you say. They agree that climate is changing and that man is partly to blame. They don't know how much man's impact is and they don't agree with many of the predictions or really know how much of a problem there will be. You want to lump everyone together who does not agree with your more extreme misinterpretations of what scientist agree to then slander people with 'denier' type rhetoric which is a loaded term associated with Nazi's. It is a terrible tactic.

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
The number who disagree is growing rapidly as all of the predictions prove to be over-hyped or downright farcical.

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
:lmao: the gift that keeps on giving

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
:lmao: the gift that keeps on giving
:goodposting:

Has Tim ever been right on anything?

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
:lmao: the gift that keeps on giving
:goodposting:

Has Tim ever been right on anything?
The science is settled!!! :oldunsure:

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
:lmao: the gift that keeps on giving
:goodposting:

Has Tim ever been right on anything?
On most issue Tim argues both sides, so I will say yes.

 
i find it hard to imagine that the planet wouldnt suffer from all the crap we are doing to it. At some point the damage has to show one way or another. To say nothings changing is just blatant denial and i can only pray that the people who can stop this do something before its to late.
Typical behavior of addicts.

 
So nobody believes that deforestation is increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere at an alarming rate? Indonesia alone is responsible for quite a bit of this problem.

 
i find it hard to imagine that the planet wouldnt suffer from all the crap we are doing to it. At some point the damage has to show one way or another. To say nothings changing is just blatant denial and i can only pray that the people who can stop this do something before its to late.
Typical behavior of addicts.
One problem is the over emphasis on CO2 as if that is the only issue. China is destroying the environment was much more nasty stuff and it is not something people seem to care about. All the emphasis is on a clear ordoess gas which is essential for life.

 
i find it hard to imagine that the planet wouldnt suffer from all the crap we are doing to it. At some point the damage has to show one way or another. To say nothings changing is just blatant denial and i can only pray that the people who can stop this do something before its to late.
Typical behavior of addicts.
you must be feeling the effects as much as anyone bottom feeder...hows all that plastic in the ocean taste? ;)

 
So nobody believes that deforestation is increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere at an alarming rate? Indonesia alone is responsible for quite a bit of this problem.
I believe desertification also contributes and that the environmentalists' anti-livestock policies are actually contributing to desertification

 
So nobody believes that deforestation is increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere at an alarming rate? Indonesia alone is responsible for quite a bit of this problem.
I believe desertification also contributes and that the environmentalists' anti-livestock policies are actually contributing to desertification
Im sure the people of Sahel would agree that desertification is a HUGE issue

 
So nobody believes that deforestation is increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere at an alarming rate? Indonesia alone is responsible for quite a bit of this problem.
I don't think anyone denies that CO2 levels are rising and that there are a number of contributors to it. And the temperature isn't rising as it was expected as a result.

 
jon, you think that I have no credibility on this issue. And you're right, I don't. I don't know the first thing about the science. I have trouble understanding it. I'm uncertain about what is to be done. I would hate for us to punish our own industries, especially if it didn't do any good.

But here's what I do know: about 90% of the world's most respected scientists agree on 3 points: global warming is occurring, it's caused by mankind's use of fossil fuels, and it's extremely serious. Virtually everyone around the world seems to agree. The only ones that disagree are American conservatives and about 10% of the scientists, almost all of whom are in the pay of oil companies with a vested interest in doubting the science. Given these facts, I feel comfortable believing that the majority of scientists have it right.

You don't believe them; I get that. But I think it's more because you don't want to than that you've truly absorbed the facts. I'm betting that you don't understand the science too much more than I do, despite the fact that you like to repeat what the skeptics have been telling you. Neither one of us have the credibility to truly know, without help, what is going on here. This is not your typical political issue where we can learn the basic facts and then disagree based on philosophy.
:lmao: the gift that keeps on giving
:goodposting:

Has Tim ever been right on anything?
You should see his work in the gun thread!

 
i find it hard to imagine that the planet wouldnt suffer from all the crap we are doing to it. At some point the damage has to show one way or another. To say nothings changing is just blatant denial and i can only pray that the people who can stop this do something before its to late.
Typical behavior of addicts.
I've saved 1614 lbs of CO2 in just the past 2 weeks alone, enough to fill 2 mid sized houses, and I don't even believe in this farce. You guys have the typical behavior of do nothing blowhards.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meanwhile, my liberal father uses as much gas double cutting his gigantic mega lawn as I do driving my car. Politics are awesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-change-underway-in-us-report-says/2013/01/11/b5ec843e-5c23-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

A federal advisory panel released a draft report Friday on how Americans can adapt to a changing climate, a more than 1,000 page tome that also sums up what has become increasingly apparent: The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.

The draft of the third National Climate Assessment warns that with the current rate of global carbon emissions, these impacts will intensify in the coming decades.

The report does not include policy recommendations, but it is designed to guide decision-makers on the federal, state and local level on how to prepare for a warmer world. In a joint blog post Friday, White House science adviser John P. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote that it is aimed at Americans “who need information about climate change in order to thrive — from farmers deciding which crops to grow, to city planners deciding the diameter of new storm sewers they are replacing, to electric utilities and regulators pondering how to protect the power grid.”

The draft will be open for public comment starting Monday and is scheduled to be finalized in March 2014. It is the third such report since 2000 and the most ambitious.

“This draft report sends a warning to all of us: We must act now in a comprehensive fashion to reduce carbon pollution or expose our people to continuing devastation from extreme weather events and their aftermath,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Rick Piltz, who heads the group Climate Science Watch, said the report offers President Obama a rare opening. “He’s said he wants to lead a national conversation on climate change. He should start the national conversation,” Piltz said.

But congressional Republicans are expected to oppose any such efforts. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who heads the Republican Study Committee, said in a statement that it is clear Americans will not tolerate any new climate policies: “Even President Obama acknowledged that our focus right now should be on putting folks back to work and growing the economy — not climate change.”

The report’s executive summary states that not only have extreme weather and climate events become more frequent in recent years, “there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities.”

The report adds that these changes are exacting an economic toll on infrastructure across the country; it also identifies specific vulnerabilities in the Washington region, such as the Chesapeake Bay, which it said was threatened by changing land use patterns and the changing climate.

Virginia Beach ranks among the nation’s “most vulnerable port cities,” according to the assessment, after Miami, the New York City area, New Orleans and Tampa-St. Petersburg.

Human health is likely to suffer as a result of higher temperatures, according to the assessment. Studies show that a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature could boost the number of premature deaths by 1,000 annually because of worse smog and fine particle pollution.

Some sectors of the economy face less immediate threats from a changing climate, according to the analysis. In the next 25 years, U.S. agriculture is expected “to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours,” the report states. Over the next 100 years, however, both crops and livestock are likely to suffer, according to the report.

 
timschochet said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-change-underway-in-us-report-says/2013/01/11/b5ec843e-5c23-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

A federal advisory panel released a draft report Friday on how Americans can adapt to a changing climate, a more than 1,000 page tome that also sums up what has become increasingly apparent: The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.

The draft of the third National Climate Assessment warns that with the current rate of global carbon emissions, these impacts will intensify in the coming decades.

The report does not include policy recommendations, but it is designed to guide decision-makers on the federal, state and local level on how to prepare for a warmer world. In a joint blog post Friday, White House science adviser John P. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote that it is aimed at Americans “who need information about climate change in order to thrive — from farmers deciding which crops to grow, to city planners deciding the diameter of new storm sewers they are replacing, to electric utilities and regulators pondering how to protect the power grid.”

The draft will be open for public comment starting Monday and is scheduled to be finalized in March 2014. It is the third such report since 2000 and the most ambitious.

“This draft report sends a warning to all of us: We must act now in a comprehensive fashion to reduce carbon pollution or expose our people to continuing devastation from extreme weather events and their aftermath,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Rick Piltz, who heads the group Climate Science Watch, said the report offers President Obama a rare opening. “He’s said he wants to lead a national conversation on climate change. He should start the national conversation,” Piltz said.

But congressional Republicans are expected to oppose any such efforts. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who heads the Republican Study Committee, said in a statement that it is clear Americans will not tolerate any new climate policies: “Even President Obama acknowledged that our focus right now should be on putting folks back to work and growing the economy — not climate change.”

The report’s executive summary states that not only have extreme weather and climate events become more frequent in recent years, “there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities.”

The report adds that these changes are exacting an economic toll on infrastructure across the country; it also identifies specific vulnerabilities in the Washington region, such as the Chesapeake Bay, which it said was threatened by changing land use patterns and the changing climate.

Virginia Beach ranks among the nation’s “most vulnerable port cities,” according to the assessment, after Miami, the New York City area, New Orleans and Tampa-St. Petersburg.

Human health is likely to suffer as a result of higher temperatures, according to the assessment. Studies show that a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature could boost the number of premature deaths by 1,000 annually because of worse smog and fine particle pollution.

Some sectors of the economy face less immediate threats from a changing climate, according to the analysis. In the next 25 years, U.S. agriculture is expected “to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours,” the report states. Over the next 100 years, however, both crops and livestock are likely to suffer, according to the report.
1,000 extra premature deaths? What's the statistical margin of error on this? :lmao:

 
timschochet said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-change-underway-in-us-report-says/2013/01/11/b5ec843e-5c23-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

A federal advisory panel released a draft report Friday on how Americans can adapt to a changing climate, a more than 1,000 page tome that also sums up what has become increasingly apparent: The country is hotter than it used to be, rainfall is becoming both more intense and more erratic, and rising seas and storm surges threaten U.S. coasts.

The draft of the third National Climate Assessment warns that with the current rate of global carbon emissions, these impacts will intensify in the coming decades.

The report does not include policy recommendations, but it is designed to guide decision-makers on the federal, state and local level on how to prepare for a warmer world. In a joint blog post Friday, White House science adviser John P. Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote that it is aimed at Americans “who need information about climate change in order to thrive — from farmers deciding which crops to grow, to city planners deciding the diameter of new storm sewers they are replacing, to electric utilities and regulators pondering how to protect the power grid.”

The draft will be open for public comment starting Monday and is scheduled to be finalized in March 2014. It is the third such report since 2000 and the most ambitious.

“This draft report sends a warning to all of us: We must act now in a comprehensive fashion to reduce carbon pollution or expose our people to continuing devastation from extreme weather events and their aftermath,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Rick Piltz, who heads the group Climate Science Watch, said the report offers President Obama a rare opening. “He’s said he wants to lead a national conversation on climate change. He should start the national conversation,” Piltz said.

But congressional Republicans are expected to oppose any such efforts. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), who heads the Republican Study Committee, said in a statement that it is clear Americans will not tolerate any new climate policies: “Even President Obama acknowledged that our focus right now should be on putting folks back to work and growing the economy — not climate change.”

The report’s executive summary states that not only have extreme weather and climate events become more frequent in recent years, “there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities.”

The report adds that these changes are exacting an economic toll on infrastructure across the country; it also identifies specific vulnerabilities in the Washington region, such as the Chesapeake Bay, which it said was threatened by changing land use patterns and the changing climate.

Virginia Beach ranks among the nation’s “most vulnerable port cities,” according to the assessment, after Miami, the New York City area, New Orleans and Tampa-St. Petersburg.

Human health is likely to suffer as a result of higher temperatures, according to the assessment. Studies show that a 1.8-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature could boost the number of premature deaths by 1,000 annually because of worse smog and fine particle pollution.

Some sectors of the economy face less immediate threats from a changing climate, according to the analysis. In the next 25 years, U.S. agriculture is expected “to be relatively resilient, even though there will be increasing disruptions from extreme heat, drought, and heavy downpours,” the report states. Over the next 100 years, however, both crops and livestock are likely to suffer, according to the report.
1,000 extra premature deaths? What's the statistical margin of error on this? :lmao:
Plus or minus six.

 
I really wish global warming would start kicking in. After that brutal winter, it still doesn't even feel like spring again. And all of the pools are supposed to open in less than 3 weeks.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Tim pulling out a report from a year and a half ago and yet Virgina Beach is still there. Thank God for Obama.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.
Ah yes, the plight of the do nothing blowhard.

 
So Tim pulling out a report from a year and a half ago and yet Virgina Beach is still there. Thank God for Obama.
The original study described in that report was just finalized. President Obama is going to make a major speech on it tomorrow.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.
Ah yes, the plight of the do nothing blowhard.
What makes me a blowhard? (On this issue, that is ;) ).

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.
Ah yes, the plight of the do nothing blowhard.
What makes me a blowhard? (On this issue, that is ;) ).
You have the most posts in this thread, just like all of the others.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.
Ah yes, the plight of the do nothing blowhard.
What makes me a blowhard? (On this issue, that is ;) ).
You have the most posts in this thread, just like all of the others.
So what? It's an important issue to me. It should be to everyone.

 
It's very depressing. I can already see that we're not going to do anything about this until it's too late.
What are you personally doing about it? Other than post a bunch of nonsense on message boards and stuff.
Nothing. This whole "fix your own carbon footprint" thing is pretty silly. It's like saying, "We need to solve unemployment, what are YOU doing about it."

Assuming that most scientists are correct, it's going to take an international effort- I'm not sure that the United States by itself can even make a significant dent at this point. I just don't know.
Ah yes, the plight of the do nothing blowhard.
What makes me a blowhard? (On this issue, that is ;) ).
You have the most posts in this thread, just like all of the others.
So what? It's an important issue to me. It should be to everyone.
Not important to actually change any of your own behavior, of course, but yeah it ranks really high on your list of things to blather about.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.
We're spending billions of dollars every year to figure out what the best possible solution to this non problem is. You don't like any of them, and you haven't offered anything resembling a viable alternative that would be palatable to you.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with doubling down on fossil fuels. What it has to do with is stopping stupid non-solutions like regulations which drive industries overseas and all kinds of new energy taxes which mostly serve to drive up costs of heating our homes and driving our cars.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with doubling down on fossil fuels. What it has to do with is stopping stupid non-solutions like regulations which drive industries overseas and all kinds of new energy taxes which mostly serve to drive up costs of heating our homes and driving our cars.
But you see, Tim doesn't endorse anything that will drive up the cost of heating your homes or driving your cars. We need some magical solution that cuts down on carbon emissions without any of these negative side effects. But the problem is immediate and he fears we might be past some danger point, so we need this magical solution involving no sacrifice to just magically appear right now.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with doubling down on fossil fuels. What it has to do with is stopping stupid non-solutions like regulations which drive industries overseas and all kinds of new energy taxes which mostly serve to drive up costs of heating our homes and driving our cars.
But you see, Tim doesn't endorse anything that will drive up the cost of heating your homes or driving your cars. We need some magical solution that cuts down on carbon emissions without any of these negative side effects. But the problem is immediate and he fears we might be past some danger point, so we need this magical solution involving no sacrifice to just magically appear right now.
Kind of like Tim's views on the budget. He understands it is an issue, but there is nothing in he government to cut or ever freeze. It is all neccessary spending and it has to keep growing exponentially or old people will starve and puppies will die.

 
If fact - it's not even important enough for you to endorse the government doing anything about it. You're even willing to throw rocks at stuff like what they're doing in Australia. Because you only want solutions where you don't have to give anything up, and there's about a 100% certain chance of success. Really, you're the worst kind of global warming freak.
I don't mind sacrificing, both myself and for the nation (and for the world) so long as I can see tangible results, or even be the least bit confident that there WILL be tangible results.

But that's in the future. The first step is acknowledging that this is a very serious problem, and then spending more money to figure out what the best possible solution is. Neither of which we're doing. And the problem with conservatives is that they seem all too eager to double down on fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with doubling down on fossil fuels. What it has to do with is stopping stupid non-solutions like regulations which drive industries overseas and all kinds of new energy taxes which mostly serve to drive up costs of heating our homes and driving our cars.
But you see, Tim doesn't endorse anything that will drive up the cost of heating your homes or driving your cars. We need some magical solution that cuts down on carbon emissions without any of these negative side effects. But the problem is immediate and he fears we might be past some danger point, so we need this magical solution involving no sacrifice to just magically appear right now.
Kind of like Tim's views on the budget. He understands it is an issue, but there is nothing in he government to cut or ever freeze. It is all neccessary spending and it has to keep growing exponentially or old people will starve and puppies will die.
Yes, very similar.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top