Climate Change "Controversy"

[Ashliana]

You are bat shit crazy.

If you want to take the most extreme, ridiculous and exceptionally liberal view of opinion not in line with your own, I think your dissertation above covers it.

You claim that my overview of contemporary Republican opposition to climate science is an "extreme, ridiculous, exceptionally liberal view" of their opinions. Okay? I can cite specific examples of what I'm talking about.

1) So Evangelical Christians all think they are perfect and or the world will end in their lifetime? Yeah, that's not an exaggeration or intentional misinterpretation of their beliefs.

I never implied that all Evangelical Christians think, or vote the same way. I said they often reject climate science, based on the reasons I listed. They do. It's not an "exaggeration" or "intentional misrepresentation" of their beliefs, buddy. The 2012 GOP primary season was a circus clown cavalcade of climate change deniers, often with purported Evangelical reasoning, like with Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, etc.

Then there's the Cornwall Alliance, James Inhofe--you know, the GOP senator from Oklahoma continuously trying to tie fabricated scandals to the Obama administration?--spouting such gems as:

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

There's Ken Cuccinelli, recently failed governor candidate for Virginia and totally insane evangelical Christian (he was Virginia's Attorney General) and his attempts to use his office to run a patently political witchhunt into the University of Virginia's work with climate scientists, before he was smacked down by Virginia's Supreme Court.

There are *bunches* more examples of this. So please tell me how many more examples I need to provide before I'm simply making an "extreme, ridiculous, exceptionally liberal view" of their opinions.

Mainstream Republicans are opposed to green energy, revile Al Gore and his hypocrisy, ignore the oil industry and simultaneously (while ignoring them) allow their special interest groups to dominate congress. Not only do you contradict yourself at the end there, it's exactly what people who vote partisan and not issues/candidates would say.

I highlighted the hypocrisy in Republican views on Al Gore--he's villified because he started advocating for green policies, invested his own money in green companies, documentaries and books, and made money off of his investments. Now that he's made money from them, any advocacy on his part (and on many other people's parts) is reduced to "self-serving money making," at the cost of the state, while Republicans seemingly have no problem with the Koch brothers and the oil industry's army of lobbyists that blatantly fund groups funding climate denial, and have the entire GOP house in their pocket--as evidenced by their total obsession with the Keystone XL pipeline, and the GOP's 2008 platform obsession with increased expansion to drilling, under the patriotic idea of "energy independence" (which is totally nonsensical, as oil drilled here is sold on the global market, and even heavy expansions in U.S. drilling would hardly counteract the ever-increasing demand for oil).

I suppose by using "virtually" you can pretty much state anything you want. Virtually all liberal media ignores anything to do with Obama and what could be considered a scandal, blunder or outright lie.

So all ills of our country can be attributed to conservative efforts to hand-waive them away. Got it. Then you throw in something we really have limited influence on, China's environmental programs. Got it.

Could you summarize neatly for me, like you did in your original post, how if we did everything in the liberal agenda, what exactly would be accomplished? Thanks!

Again, I can provide examples.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-coverage.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/foxne...science-2012-9
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121503181.html

Fox and the Wall-Street Journal grossly over-represent climate deniers and "skeptics," heavily promote articles that are skeptical, in any way, and--I wonder what their biggest story was for weeks, when the so-called "Climategate scandal" occurred (which turned out to have almost completely absolved the scientists in question of wrongdoing), leading Nature to summarize: "There is also the sense that many in the media felt cheated by the original Climategate. They were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear."

Republicans make no secret of their "business knows best," anti-regulation philosophy. There's an obvious profit motive for oil companies in maintaining the status quo, and their broad influence among lawmakers and conservative politicians is readily apparent to even the most slightly objective observer. China is simply the example of the future we have awaiting us, if Republicans get their wish to eliminate the EPA, expand oil production everywhere, and deregulate the industry.

"I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear... there's a real effort on the part of some in the president's party that don't like the American enterprise system and are trying to find a way to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence." -Romney

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Like I said, bat shit crazy.

There are multitudes of views, opinions and actions which exist within your extremes you seem to want to apply to every person on the globe. In your world, people are either liberals doing everything to save the planet (via uncontested scientific "fact"), wash out corruption and unify the world in peace, or a conservative doing everything possible to destroy the planet, get into big business money to keep the poor man down and go to war to take what they want and destroy anything in their path.

Reality is there are bat shit crazy people of all types at both extremes - to use them as outstanding examples of a population of people who make up half the country is retarded, in either camp. Anyone who really wants to make a change understands this and doesn't inflame people who may or may not agree with them by classifying anyone not 100% in their camp as earth destroying, religious zealots, corrupt with greed and power hungry for more of the same.

If you really believe that, you cannot possibly think there is any hope to actually make a change and should just hang yourself.

[Ashliana]

You're right. Quoting prominent Republican leaders verbatim is bat-shit crazy, and is extremist "liberalism" at work. You're jumping to end-conclusions I never stated. If you see those conclusions, based on the indisputable actions of Republicans, your problem is with yourself, or them--not me.

[waywardgs]

Neg rep:

"If you don't believe in man made global warming, then you must believe the earth is flat! You've already failed the debate, retard."


My point is that in the scientific world, there IS no more debate.

You can fondle your brain with your crackpot conspiracy theories all you want, but it doesn't change the fact, flatlander.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You're right. Quoting prominent Republican leaders verbatim is bat-shit crazy, and is extremist "liberalism" at work. You're jumping to end-conclusions I never stated. If you see those conclusions, based on the indisputable actions of Republicans, your problem is with yourself, or them--not me.

I have no issue with you at all. I just think your worldview is so decidedly skewed you are bat shit crazy and closed to any rational discussion about it. You can quote the extremists all you want to me, it doesn't mean a whole party follows that mindset.

That'd be like me quoting a democrat saying too many people on an island can cause it to capsize means all democrats believe that. Or because a republican says a woman's body can reject rape means all republicans believe it to be so. Anthony Weiner was a prominent democrat, do you believe everything he says? What about Carlos Danger?

Anywho, good luck with that perspective.

[waywardgs]

I wasn't aware that Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the presidency, was considered by his party to be an "extremist."

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Replace my sentence of "You can quote the extremists all you want to me," with "You can quote anyone all you want to me,"

[Parkbandit]

My point is that in the scientific world, there IS no more debate.

I'm not sure you understand the scientific world.


At all.

[Jarvan]

Replace my sentence of "You can quote the extremists all you want to me," with "You can quote anyone all you want to me,"

You forget. They like to pick out the nutjobs, and say "Hey look, they all think this way"

Then when people do it with their people, they say.. 'well, he is just an extremist, we aren't all like that".

And there is no point in having any discussion with Cat Boy. He is beyond bat shit crazy. He makes Back look rational, and that is REALLY something.

[waywardgs]

Then when people do it with their people, they say.. 'well, he is just an extremist, we aren't all like that".

Isn't this exactly what shm did?