Climate deniers "pigs"

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't think anyone can truly argue that the world isn't getting warmer. This could be (probably) is having a huge effect. The argument shouldn't be about its cause, but about what, if anything, can we do, and at what cost, both financially and socially, can we do it to not cause more harm in another area than good in the direction of the problem we are trying to solve...

The argument has been framed the way it has for profit and personal gain on BOTH sides...of this I am in no doubt, and it has set the solutions that could have been possible back. It is a problem involving a lot of things, but mostly that big business (oil and green) have the ears of too many politicians.

both sides!??

this is frustrating ... an oil company spending millions of dollars on spreading lies in order to continually exploit an archaic resource and mass profits is the same as some outfit trying to protect polar bears!?? ...

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't think anyone can truly argue that the world isn't getting warmer. This could be (probably) is having a huge effect. The argument shouldn't be about its cause, but about what, if anything, can we do, and at what cost, both financially and socially, can we do it to not cause more harm in another area than good in the direction of the problem we are trying to solve...

The argument has been framed the way it has for profit and personal gain on BOTH sides...of this I am in no doubt, and it has set the solutions that could have been possible back. It is a problem involving a lot of things, but mostly that big business (oil and green) have the ears of too many politicians.

both sides!??

this is frustrating ... an oil company spending millions of dollars on spreading lies in order to continually exploit an archaic resource and mass profits is the same as some outfit trying to protect polar bears!?? ...

You are right this is frustrating. I suppose all people in the green energy business are in it for the right reasons? Al Gore must do all his work for free, simply because it is the right thing to do. It isn't possible that a research agency looking to find global warming patterns would cherry pick data. I don't really need to list off the green energy companies who have received millions in gov't funding and gone bankrupt do I? They exploited something for personal gain, motivations aside. Thanks for missing my point and continuing the cycle of arguing against another side because they are the wrong ones in an argument that has no pragmatic purpose. Gotta keep the troops motivated I guess. (anyone who can tell me where that line is from gets a HUGE gold star)

I am not sure if you realized that I agreed with you in that we need to find solutions and attempt to solve the warming earth problem rather than argue about its cause. Natural or man made doesn't really matter, let's try to minimize the affects of what we do...that is what I would like to see happen.

Corporations fight it because they don't want the government to expand regulation which is already quite extensive.

Speaking of myths, the biggest one out there is that corporations are free to pollute at will (edit: at least in the US).

mikepegg44 wrote:

Arguing over the cause of the cause doesn't help, I guess I should have put it that way. Arguing with someone who is saying should put our energy into finding solutions rather than continually trying to explain quantum physics to a rock is also a waste of time.
Greenhouse gases have been identified as being a cause. Man made or simply the earth doing it doesn't matter. Saying the earth is warming and looking for solutions is a better use of resources in my opinion. I didn't say solyndra, you did. I just mentioned businesses that were start ups that started simply because there was green initiative money to be had that had no real hope of surviving or making a difference. If you don't think there are people looking to exploit Green energy initiatives for personal gain I don't know what else to tell you. the Climate is changing, some say it is man made, some say it isn't, but either way, why not do something about it if we can? I have never seen someone argue with someone who agrees that stuff should be done.

Incidentally, GE is a corporation. But they aren't looking to make a profit with green energy I guess, do they fall under the environmentalist, scientist, or non profit category?

...Can you honestly look at your computer screen, imagine my eyes and then look into them and tell me that no one on your "side" is attempting to profit from green initiatives simply for personal gain? That it simply isn't possible that someone would embellish or elaborate consequences for personal gain?

When have you ever known me to simply spout the same old BS talking points, seriously. Read what I wrote, if you think that is a normal comment from someone on the right than I didn't explain my point very well. But again, continue to argue that one "side"" is more noble than the other...that usually helps get a point across...
I don't know about you, but hypothetically, I do much better when someone asks for help rather than tells me that I am too stupid to see that help is needed because I asked a clarifying question...

thinking that it is possible for gov'ts to solve this problem is something I would argue, not the problem itself.

ok ... you said: "green energy companies who have received millions in gov't funding and gone bankrupt do I?"

if you aren't talking about solyndra who are you talking about then?

and you brought up al gore ... how many times have we heard mitt talk about this? ... i'm calling it like i see it ... the right love to talk about solyndra and how big of a house al gore has ... if you aren't bringing up the same old bs talking points - what are you doing then?

and again - so, someone decides they are going to exploit green issues and make a profit ... what do you want me to say? ... i don't really care for those people ... fuck them along with GE, exxon or whoever ...

and i'm sorry but how can we fix the problem if we don't know what it is!? ... ok - so, you agree its greenhouse gases ... well ... don't you think we need to know if its man made or naturally occurring? ... how else do you fix a problem!? ... it's like you have a gas leak in your car ... don't you want to know where it's leaking?

polaris_x wrote:

and i'm sorry but how can we fix the problem if we don't know what it is!? ... ok - so, you agree its greenhouse gases ... well ... don't you think we need to know if its man made or naturally occurring? ... how else do you fix a problem!? ... it's like you have a gas leak in your car ... don't you want to know where it's leaking?

Al Gore isn't a talking point to me, and I don't listen to Mitt Romney or what he has to say to be honest. I just know his platform from the early debates where I didn't hear him mention Gore. Big Al is a prime example of someone EXPLOITING a situation in my opinion. I don't care about the size of a man's house. I know only people on the right can be hypocritical so I probably shouldn't judge him.

At what point in my argument did I make it sound like I didn't think something should be done? I just used the phrase both sides and you exploded on me with oil companies and the helpless folks who want to save the polar bears. Pointing out GE was a simple way of showing you that people and groups are out there that take advantage of the green initiatives for personal gain. It looked like to me that you made it seem like they didn't exist.
Talking point or not, Solyndra is an example of a company that took millions for green initiatives. Don't think they did that out of the goodness of their hearts, I believe they did it for personal gain. They perceived a need and tried to fill it and got money to do so. didn't work out, but they didn't do it for any other reason than profit. Solyndra isn't alone, i am not going to list them here nor do I think it is pertinent to the discussion.

I don't think the question is valid anymore. It has gone from greenhouse gas being a possible cause to arguing over whether it is man made or not...that tangent is not important IMO. It is likely both, so doing something about the emissions whether man is doing it or not is what is important. Does that make sense? I may not be saying it right but that is what I was trying to say and I don't really know another way to say it. So I don't think your example holds true...it is like I have a gas leak in my car, and after identifying the leak, instead of fixing it, I begin to argue over what caused it...either way it still needs to get fixed.

But apparently I am just spouting right wing talking points while AGREEING WITH YOU that we need to fix it I think maybe you disagreed with me too quickly because you are used to doing so

polaris_x wrote:

ok ... so you have a nail protruding into your gas line ... you gonna just fix the leak and ignore the nail? ... it is critical that we understand what the cause is otherwise - we can't find a solution ... it should be common sense and i'm really not sure how you can argue this ...

and i'm sorry if you didn't like being called out but tell me al gore isn't the right's favourite punching bag and solyndra isn't another favourite of the right!?? ... the both sides argument is frustrating because a) it's deflecting from the issue and b) it's akin to commenting on the palestinian conflict as both sides are wrong ... it isn't a critical examination of what reality is ... it's lazy imo ... it aims to negate what has happened that has brought us to this point ...

again - you can't fix a problem unless you know the cause ...

You didn't call me out as I don't spout talking points, so you mistakenly took what I was saying as simply falling back on old hats. The right's talking point of solyndra is for a completely different issue than global warming/climate change exploitation...It is a poster child of the right for the appearance of a sweat heart deal for a campaign contributor in the name of green energy. I used a general behavior of a company as an example of a green company (you named it solyndra, because it is known by most people I assume. Makes sense to use it because sometimes others read these posts and just need a quick reference rather than every company who ever took money for personal gain and failed.)

Your nail example is interesting, but changes the issue I think. If I were to use it, wouldn't it be better to fix the holes that we determined were caused by a nail, rather than trying to find out where I may have acquired the nail? Either way, right now my fuel is leaking and I can't do anything until I solve that problem. In climate change, the problem has been found hasn't it? Green house gases are the nail, correct? So why argue over where they come from, why not try to fix both holes? I wouldn't continually try to prove that nails were the cause of the hole in my tank, proving that once was enough. Now if I looked at the holes caused by the nail and only fixed one thinking it was going to solve the problem for ever, well then that is another story.

Pragmatism is often confused with laziness and giving in. It is neither. I must not be saying this correctly because I think if I could explain it in a way that made sense to you, you would agree with me.

AND, just for clarification purposes, I said both sides EXPLOIT the climate change argument for personal gain. I didn't say or mean ALL those involved exploit it...I listed a couple of examples of that exploitation, I didn't say that climate change deniers were right, but I don't think oil companies are the only ones acting in bad faith...i think either way we should do something about the gases, man made or not, it is/is going to affect us all.

*** I think I may see the flaw in my description. What I am trying to say is that the question of the cause seems to have been answered but its like the argument then switched so that we are still arguing about something rather than moving to solutions. Man made or not, shouldn't we try to solve green house gas emissions? That is my point.

mikepegg44 wrote:

*** I think I may see the flaw in my description. What I am trying to say is that the question of the cause seems to have been answered but its like the argument then switched so that we are still arguing about something rather than moving to solutions. Man made or not, shouldn't we try to solve green house gas emissions? That is my point.

the cause is relevant because if people think that the greenhouse gases are naturally occurring - how the heck are you gonna offer solutions? ... if we can't agree that it is man made and it is related to industrialization, deforestation, environmental degradation, and wasteful energy consumption then how the heck do we fix it? ...

mikepegg44 wrote:

I see what you are saying. we have been throwing rocks at a mountain for quite a while trying it the way we are...maybe a change in message would help...Allow people to be part of the solution rather than feeling accused...too many times people here man made and they immediately get defensive as if you are saying they specifically caused it themselves...I don't know...human psychology is strange and a positive argument might be a better? I don't know for sure, I just know the way the message is delivered now has been neutralized and needs to change.

well ... i think the problem with that is that when you try and tailor the message - it just gives the opponents another avenue by which to add confusion ... take the term climate change for instance ... it was like we changed it from global warming to climate change so people didn't take a cold snap as proof it wasn't happening ... but in the end - all it did was allow opposing groups another opportunity to discredit the issue ...

a big part of the problem (like so many other issues) is people don't think critically anymore and for lack of a better term have been indoctrinated ... like how the cuss did global warming become a partisan issue where the majority of repblicans don't believe it and the majority of democrats do!? ... we are fighting against misinformation campaigns that target the lazy and weak and most of all selfish ... i'm just not sure succumbing to one's defensive attitude is going to work out in the long run ...

polaris_x wrote:

well ... i think the problem with that is that when you try and tailor the message - it just gives the opponents another avenue by which to add confusion ... take the term climate change for instance ... it was like we changed it from global warming to climate change so people didn't take a cold snap as proof it wasn't happening ... but in the end - all it did was allow opposing groups another opportunity to discredit the issue

Good point. I always thought Global Warming being the term used in discussion was the largest problem to overcome. It is the term, the definition of climate change now, rather than climate change being the only focus...

a big part of the problem (like so many other issues) is people don't think critically anymore and for lack of a better term have been indoctrinated ... like how the cuss did global warming become a partisan issue where the majority of republicans don't believe it and the majority of democrats do!? ... we are fighting against misinformation campaigns that target the lazy and weak and most of all selfish ... i'm just not sure succumbing to one's defensive attitude is going to work out in the long run ...

yeah, maybe not. But not succumbing to it isn't working either. Damned if you do I suppose.