Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate change: Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on our global future

Climate change: Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on our global future

+5
TEOTWAWKI
2seaoat
boards of FL
Sal
nadalfan
9 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

nadalfan



For those interested, this is where the presidential candidates stand on climate change. For me, anyone who denies it loses all credibility. One can discuss the best ways to tackle it, but denial means they've been bought or are scientifically illiterate. Neither is acceptable.


https://www.yahoo.com/politics/climate-change-where-the-2016-presidential-126684106071.html

Guest


Guest

The flat earth theory used to share the same dogma... with all the same authoritarian consequences for deniers.

Y'all remind me more of leftist chicken littles than anything approaching those that understand science.

nadalfan



PkrBum wrote:The flat earth theory used to share the same dogma... with all the same authoritarian consequences for deniers.

Y'all remind me more of leftist chicken littles than anything approaching those that understand science.

like I said...bought or scientifically illiterate

Guest


Guest

nadalfan wrote:
PkrBum wrote:The flat earth theory used to share the same dogma... with all the same authoritarian consequences for deniers.

Y'all remind me more of leftist chicken littles than anything approaching those that understand science.

like I said...bought or scientifically illiterate

I am anything but scientifically illiterate. The science I know doesn't torture the data to force a model to fit a theory.

The earth has been warming for about 10k years... since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest.

I'm sure man has some minor temporary effect on the temperature of our planet... but so do alot of things.

The fact is that humans would've never proliferated as they had if not for this temporary warming trend. Distressing I know.

Science is never settled comrade.

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:

Science is never settled comrade.

Yeah! ....

.... the Earth still might be flat ....

.... well, ....

.... it might be ....

.... amirite, random internet guy?

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:The flat earth theory used to share the same dogma... with all the same authoritarian consequences for deniers.

Y'all remind me more of leftist chicken littles than anything approaching those that understand science.


What a terrible analogy.  Flat earth theory was in opposition to scientific and empirical observation.   Likewise, climate change denial is also in opposition to scientific and empirical observation.  For the millionth time, there are no scientific organizations that deny anthropogenic climate change.  None.  Zero.  So on one side we have the consensus of all scientific organizations who work in the field of climate science, and on the other side we have republicans - who are only taking their position of denial due to being paid by the fossil fuel industry - and the cognitively challenged base of voters that they pander to.  That's it.

Getting back to the analogy, this means that you're like someone from ancient times who continued to subscribe to flat earth theory in spite of evidence to the contrary.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



There is zero debate that climate change is happening, and next to zero debate that man made pollution is a contributing factor.  To state otherwise is bone chilling stupid as the scientific consensus is there and alternative theories for the climate change have never held up to scientific scrutiny.  I never could understand why anybody would be against lowering pollution.  How can the crazies be so consistently wrong on every issue?   Race....there is no racism......voter ID.....well yea there is massive fraud........Middle East......we need boots on the ground......health care.....we need to double down on profit...that will solve the problems......immigration....we need to pack up 11 million people and boot them out of the country.......

Stupid migrates to stupid.

Guest


Guest

If it were just lowering pollution there would be next to no issue... but you know damn well the agenda is much larger.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:If it were just lowering pollution there would be next to no issue... but you know damn well the agenda is much larger.


Can you explain what that agenda is?  Your theory is that every scientific organization on the planet is working to deceive the people of the world into believing that the 33 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted annually has no impact on our climate.   So there is this massive, clandestine conspiracy going on that involves all scientific orgs on the planet (and, oddly enough, the only people wise enough to see this are non-establishment republicans and the fossil fuel industry).  To what end are they doing this?  Will they one day reveal themselves and say "Ha!  People of the Earth, you have been fooled! Now we will implement world tyranny and make you all slaves!"  

What is this agenda - specifically - that you're referencing here?  Who is behind it?


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

It has something murky to do with one world government and population control and maybe the Bilderbergs or something.

I'm sure Z can clear it up for us.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Salinsky wrote:It has something murky to do with one world government and population control and maybe the Bilderbergs or something.

I'm sure Z can clear it up for us.

Climate change: Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on our global future D2125910

Guest


Guest

It's almost comical... if it weren't ultimately nefarious. They can come right out and tell you the truth...

but you useful idiots will still buy the feel good talkingpoint.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/video/un-climate-chief-announces-remaking-204543894.html

http://unaffiliatedparty.org/2015/01/14/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:If it were just lowering pollution there would be next to no issue... but you know damn well the agenda is much larger.

Things to be outlawed (regulated out of existence by EPA) in the not too distant future:

All open burning, including woodburning stoves (new EPA regs recently issued) and fireplaces, barbecue pits (charcoal braziers first, followed by gas grills), and eventually, campfires in our nation's state and national parks.

All small 2 and 4-stroke engines. It will be illegal to own and use gasoline-powered lawn-mowing equipment, chainsaws, weed-wackers, etc.

We will all be going vege one day, as methane-producing feedlots will become so regulated that they will be forced out of business. At least, their products will become too expensive for the common person to buy.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Salinsky wrote:It has something murky to do with one world government and population control and maybe the Bilderbergs or something.

I'm sure Z can clear it up for us.

Absolutely! I wonder if their ever will be Climate Wars. Countries who refuse to comply with the global climate mandates get attacked by a "coalition" of countries that intend to force the wayward government to begin reducing greenhouse gasses or meet mandated reduction levels.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Nothing like cordite and napalm to heal the environment

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:It's almost comical... if it weren't ultimately nefarious. They can come right out and tell you the truth...

but you useful idiots will still buy the feel good talkingpoint.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/video/un-climate-chief-announces-remaking-204543894.html

http://unaffiliatedparty.org/2015/01/14/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/



But to what end?  So it appears that you're saying that the UN is the entity that is ultimately behind this massive conspiracy.  Fair enough.  So at some point in the past, the UN had to reach out to every scientific organization on the planet and basically lay out their plan.  They had to convince all of these organizations to begin producing bullshit research - for several decades - in the hopes that one day they would be able to fool everyone on the planet into believing that the billions of tonnes of CO2 emitted each year exhibits an influence on the Earth's climate.  OK.  So let's say that everyone (well, everyone but the fossil fuel industry and non-establishment republicans) is fooled and the UN is then able to restructure the world economy so that our emissions are reduced and that we're better stewards of our environment.

Then what?  What would be the entire point of that?  Where is the payoff for the UN - the mastermind behind the conspiracy - and every scientific organization on the planet that has agreed to independently produce bullshit research for decades?

Or better yet, why aren't there any scientific organizations that aren't part of this conspiracy?  Wouldn't it seem likely that at least one organization - just one - would be legitimate?  Further, why is it that the UN - with an annual budget of roughly $5.4 billion - would be able to pull something like this off when the fossil fuel industry opposes it?  Exxon Mobil's SGA expense alone is over $74 billion annually.  It would seem as if the fossil fuel industry would be in a better position and would command the resources needed to pay off the entire world scientific community for several decades moreso than the measly UN.



Last edited by boards of FL on 8/17/2015, 1:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


_________________
I approve this message.

Sal

Sal

So, as clean and renewable energy systems become more feasible, less expensive, and more popular, wealth will be redistributed from the fossil fuel energy producers to the producers of these new energy systems.

That's your massive conspiracy theory??

Climate change: Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on our global future Omgonozkt6

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:If it were just lowering pollution there would be next to no issue... but you know damn well the agenda is much larger.

How about leaving our kids and their kids a livable, sustainable planet upon which to live. How's that for an agenda you whacked out agent for fossil fuel profits!!

Guest


Guest

I linked not long ago the un ipcc strategy... they want 1% of gdp for starters... 170B.

We'll hear more as the dec meeting nears.

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:I linked not long ago the un ipcc strategy... they want 1% of gdp for starters... 170B.

We'll hear more as the dec meeting nears.


OK.  So, here again, let's assume that this massive conspiracy works, everyone is convinced, and the world economy is restructured so that we emit less...then what?  What would have been the point of all of this?  Where is the payoff for the UN and every scientific organization on the planet that agreed to produce bullshit research for several decades?

Have you not thought your idea through to this point yet?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:If it were just lowering pollution there would be next to no issue... but you know damn well the agenda is much larger.

How about leaving our kids and their kids a livable, sustainable planet upon which to live. How's that for an agenda you whacked out agent for fossil fuel profits!!

The earth will be here and fine long after humans. There were times like right before cambrian explosion that co2 levels were way higher than today. The earth has many mechanisms to counteract all sorts of things... luckily for us.

We will be gradually transitioning off of fossil fuels as supply declines... naturally. The earth will be just fine.

What you purpose to leave our kids is some demented collectivist theory of social slavery.

This is just another means to an authoritarian end dumbass.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:We will be gradually transitioning off of fossil fuels as supply declines... naturally. The earth will be just fine.

This transition occurs during the 21st Century. I am all for newer, cleaner, less expensive forms of energy that technology will bring us. Solar tops the list. The oil peak raises its head again about 50 years from now, so society will be transitioning to an all electric and mostly renewable (except for nuclear and the cold fusion reactors we will have perfected by then) one in that period.

I find the near-term "tipping points" claiming that Manhattan will be under water by 2030 if we do not boldly act now to be not credible.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

PkrBum wrote: ....
I am anything but scientifically illiterate. The science I know doesn't torture the data to force a model to fit a theory.

The earth has been warming for about 10k years... since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest.  

I'm sure man has some minor temporary effect on the temperature of our planet... but so do alot of things.

The fact is that humans would've never proliferated as they had if not for this temporary warming trend. Distressing I know.
...


We are somewhat in agreement.

But to me, the real questions are:

*  How much of a contribution to climate change is due to human activity .... and how much due to factors beyond our control?   Has science been able to definitively quantify that?

*  How much can we really do about it as a nation, and at what cost?

*  How much money/resources are we expending as a nation to adapt to a slight rise in temperatures, as contrasted to how much we are expending or proposed to expend in a (possibly futile) effort to prevent/stop climate change?

*  What might be the benefits for humans should the climate warm a a few degrees?

* Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing issue? (okay ... that's rhetorical. Answer: "partisan politics." Politicians know the great mass of people like a clear black & white dichotomy.)

boards of FL

boards of FL

EmeraldGhost wrote:
PkrBum wrote: ....
I am anything but scientifically illiterate. The science I know doesn't torture the data to force a model to fit a theory.

The earth has been warming for about 10k years... since there was a mile high glacier sitting on our midwest.  

I'm sure man has some minor temporary effect on the temperature of our planet... but so do alot of things.

The fact is that humans would've never proliferated as they had if not for this temporary warming trend. Distressing I know.
...


We are somewhat in agreement.

But to me, the real questions are:

*  How much of a contribution to climate change is due to human activity .... and how much due to factors beyond our control?   Has science been able to definitively quantify that?

*  How much can we really do about it as a nation, and at what cost?

*  How much money/resources are we expending as a nation to adapt to a slight rise in temperatures, as contrasted to how much we are expending or proposed to expend in a (possibly futile) effort to prevent/stop climate change?

*  What might be the benefits for humans should the climate warm a a few degrees?

*  Why does this have to be an all-or-nothing issue?  (okay ... that's rhetorical.   Answer: "partisan politics."    Politicians know the great mass of people like a clear black & white dichotomy.)



Some of this is answered here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:I linked not long ago the un ipcc strategy... they want 1% of gdp for starters... 170B.

We'll hear more as the dec meeting nears.


OK.  So, here again, let's assume that this massive conspiracy works, everyone is convinced, and the world economy is restructured so that we emit less...then what?  What would have been the point of all of this?  Where is the payoff for the UN and every scientific organization on the planet that agreed to produce bullshit research for several decades?

Have you not thought your idea through to this point yet?



So that's it, eh?  We have reached the end of PkrBum's climate science narrative.  It's all a huge UN conspiracy to do....something.....that he can't find the words to explain.    

Imagine if your lung function began to gradually decrease.  You're a smoker.  You somehow manage to find time to visit - literally - every single hospital that exists on the planet earth.  And, amazingly, you leave every single hospital with the same recommendation.  They all basically tell you that smoking is causing your lungs to deteriorate and the sooner you stop, the sooner you will be on the path to recovery.

You're still not convinced, so you go to the library and check out every peer reviewed article that has been published on smoking and lung function over the last 30 years and you read them all.  You then determine that 97% of all of those article agree with the 100% unanimous recommendation that you received when you visited every hospital on earth:  smoking is causing your lungs to deteriorate and the sooner you stop, the sooner you will be on the path to recovery.

You're still not convinced.  So you ask the cigarette companies.  They tell you that there is no connection between smoking and lung function.  

Good enough for PkrBum!

If that isn't the definition of a useful idiot, what is?


_________________
I approve this message.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Climate change: Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on our global future

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum