Global warming...

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

soo ... is it that you don't believe the science of global warming or is it because you've attached global warming to be a gov't conspiracy? ... in that global warming is a propaganda piece utilized by the gov't to impose laws and taxes and impede your freedoms ...

I myself don't believe in any conspiracy involving the government ... However I do believe governments are going to use climate change to impose taxes, because that's what governments do ...

this makes no sense ... so, if the gov't imposes a carbon tax ... it's automatically bad? ... they should do nothing about it? ... they should continue to allow us to use resources and energy without paying the true cost?

:fp:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

:fp:

Exactly my point.
Because I am not affiliated with your "side" or party, its ignored and mocked...

no ... it's more frustration ... i said I wasn't going to respond to your posts on this anymore because I am not sure you have a grasp of what you are writing ... but just so you know it isn't about mocking you ...

you have no understanding of the environmental movement ... the politicizing of the issue is a necessity in so much as any issue such as war and poverty are ... the gov't is supposed to reflect the desires of its populace through policy and legislation ... trying to solve global warming has to involve gov't policy ... to think otherwise is utterly absurd ...

regardless of that fact ... i have been saying for years that solutions are in front of us and that what the gov't does runs parallel to any change ... been posting solutions for years ... but you aren't listening ... you have never listened ... just the other day you accused me of never explaining global warming ... i proved you wrong ... and now you want to change the topic again by going on some ideological bent on environmentalists of which you clearly know nothing about ...

that is what the :fp: is for ... i'll repeat myself one more time ... stop reading these right wing websites that are feeding you this shit ... i caught you copying and pasting from one of these forums before ... think for yourself ... read up on the issue and see what environmentalists are REALLY doing ... don't lump this issue with your ideological rant against "lefties" or "liberals" or whatever label your partisan-warped beliefs are guiding you ...

i'm sorry, but i can't hear you over my own talking...

Blockhead wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thank you, lcusick. Well said.

What I'm wondering is, if we don't want government in the position of regulating industry (which is the greatest source of pollution) how do you (or others here) suggest industrial pollution be reigned in in a timely manner (because, as you know, time is of the essence) and how do we get more ordinary citizens to do their part? I don't mean this as a challenge- I'm sincerely interest in how we can do that in such a timely manner as to avert an even greater disaster than that with which we will already likely have to deal with. If we look to a less governmental influenced position, who will keep things in check? How focused, for example, are libertarians or Tea Party members on this critical issue?

Its sad that most "environmentalists" and people from the "green movement" are the most clueless when it actually
comes to solving the global warming problem and just want to politicize it and turn it into a Gov. regulation system.

If the people posting on this site who claim to know the science, actually did, they would realize there are plenty of ways we can undo global warming within 1-2 decades if we actually desire to.

1. Undo the growing desertification of the world by making it greener, desertification is only furthering global warming.
2. We can Take CO2 out of the atmosphere with "robot trees." 1 robot tree = 1000 natural trees with taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
3. There's geoengineering, which blocks as much sunlight from hitting the earth's surface.
4. Grass fed Beef.

These methods actually IMPROVE the planet, instead of going around the pollution problem...

The problem with global warming is the politics, who will/are using it to their benefit. More regulations, more taxation, more power grabbing... Why anybody thinks this is the route to follow is a simple partisan and really has no true intent of helping this planet, or they are just clueless and like repeating over and over "look at the science"

No offense man, but you're not getting anywhere when you begin by calling people "clueless" and their methods "sad."

Honestly, I am very interested in the 4 points you made, but I have a hard time respecting your approach when it begins with such rudeness. Every post you make sounds angry. Just consider your approach.. and perhaps you have more info on those four points you brought up? Maybe people could do both your suggestions and Polaris and Brian's suggestions? I mean, if we're all in agreement that there is a problem, there should be many ways to battle it.

And there's nothing wrong with linking to other sites that have done respectable research on the matter.

I will check out Allan Savory too.. Thanks for that suggestion.

can't have a real discussion when people like this, a non-scientist, have a platform :fp: :fp:

Don't get caught using eco-friendly light bulbs in Glenn Beck's office

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/do ... 52793.html

Do anything to combat global warming in Glenn Beck’s office? You’re fired.

To prove his case against global warming, which Beck labels a “load of socialist, communist crap,” the right-wing talk-show host announced his war against energy-efficient light bulbs.

On air, he asked a staffer to write a memo that threatened to fire anyone caught using one. The YouTube video of the moment was picked up by Grist.

"I'm dead serious," Beck said on his radio program, as his employees titter nervously. "I fire the person that starts to purchase fluorescent light bulbs, unless that is the only light bulb for a very specific reason, and I want to be cc'd on what that reason is." How about to light a dark room? Is that reason enough?

But Beck’s vendetta against eco-friendly office supplies doesn’t end there. He told one worker not to purchase any more recyclable spoons, either.

“If anyone does anything in this company because of global warming, they’re fired,” he said. He’s OK with saving trees, though. Except for writing all those memos.

Perhaps Beck didn’t get the memo that a majority of Americans believe climate change is real.

Blockhead wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Thank you, lcusick. Well said.

What I'm wondering is, if we don't want government in the position of regulating industry (which is the greatest source of pollution) how do you (or others here) suggest industrial pollution be reigned in in a timely manner (because, as you know, time is of the essence) and how do we get more ordinary citizens to do their part? I don't mean this as a challenge- I'm sincerely interest in how we can do that in such a timely manner as to avert an even greater disaster than that with which we will already likely have to deal with. If we look to a less governmental influenced position, who will keep things in check? How focused, for example, are libertarians or Tea Party members on this critical issue?

Its sad that most "environmentalists" and people from the "green movement" are the most clueless when it actually
comes to solving the global warming problem and just want to politicize it and turn it into a Gov. regulation system.

Calling us "clueless"... nice inflammatory touch. That will surely instigate some useful conversation, right? :roll:

Blockhead wrote:

If the people posting on this site who claim to know the science, actually did, they would realize there are plenty of ways we can undo global warming within 1-2 decades if we actually desire to.

1. Undo the growing desertification of the world by making it greener, desertification is only furthering global warming.
2. We can Take CO2 out of the atmosphere with "robot trees." 1 robot tree = 1000 natural trees with taking CO2 out of the atmosphere.
3. There's geoengineering, which blocks as much sunlight from hitting the earth's surface.
4. Grass fed Beef.

These methods actually IMPROVE the planet, instead of going around the pollution problem...

True, many believe technology is the answer. Others believe understand the natural world and working within it's parameters makes more sense. Time will tell. Personally, I'd rather live in a world in which based on nature and natural cycles rather than one purely artificial- which is the end result of "solving" everything with technology.

Blockhead wrote:

The problem with global warming is the politics, who will/are using it to their benefit. More regulations, more taxation, more power grabbing... Why anybody thinks this is the route to follow is a simple partisan and really has no true intent of helping this planet, or they are just clueless and like repeating over and over "look at the science"

Is this how you instigate useful conversation- by telling us what our "true intent" is and calling us "clueless"? I'm supposed to take that seriously? :roll: Sounds more like trolling. You obviously have read your own thoughts into my words. I have not politicized the discussion on environment nor have I seen most others here who care about the environment.

one would think that if someone were going to lob the "stupid" accusation that that person would know the difference between "your" and "you're".

just sayin.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

one would think that if someone were going to lob the "stupid" accusation that that person would know the difference between "your" and "you're".

just sayin.

I think in subtle fashion... this line of thinking should have been successfully conveyed. Yet the message was not received.

I'll frame it this way: what pictures come to mind when, while refuting global warming, some dude is calling people stupid... and spelling 'the' and 'cat' wrong?

BinFrog wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

one would think that if someone were going to lob the "stupid" accusation that that person would know the difference between "your" and "you're".

just sayin.

I think in subtle fashion... this line of thinking should have been successfully conveyed. Yet the message was not received.

I'll frame it this way: what pictures come to mind when, while refuting global warming, some dude is calling people stupid... and spelling 'the' and 'cat' wrong?

Someone wearing a tinfoil hat and opening up Internet Explorer 6.0 which is, of course, set to open up infowars.com as the homepage.

Ok. Now I have some imagery.