there is a lot of data that supports that we are causing global warming...thats fine...but isnt there a lot of data as well, that shows that temp changes have always occured? i think most are just going to have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to believe that we are causing it. yes..there is a lot of data, but it really is up to these scientists to convince everyone. its gonna take sometime as well...even then theres gonna be nay-sayers.
well, i hate to make a sarcastic comment considering i misunderstood, but here goes this is irony coming from a conservative, considering all the other issues conservatives would like to take us back in time on
What issues exactly would we conservatives like to take us back in time on? I am dying to be told what I am supposed to believe, since apparently I don't know.. this one is definitely a mystery to me.. please elaborate.
more drilling gay marriage evolution affirmative action gov't regulation of banking and investment banks to name a few
Which issues do you think I want to take you back in time on? Gay Marriage - I'm for full legalization of gay marriage. Evolution - I believe completely in the theory of evolution. Affirmative Action - I think AA actually takes us backwards and keeps us from moving forward. Gov't Regulation of Banking - I think the problem isn't that there isn't enough government regulation of banks. Rather I think that there are too many pseudo-private banks that try to toe the line between being a public and a private entity. Perhaps lumping everyone who doesn't agree with you into a small box doesn't really work.
I wasn't asking because I wanted to know if you were a climate person, I was just curious because I'm also a scientist (astrophysics). And as for the handle, well... I clearly came up with that when everyone was excited about this great rookie the Rockets had.
I didn't generalize them. Did you even read what I wrote? I said there is a part of the movement that feels that way and they are who wind up as the target of the arguments of many global warming deniers. It's like you're purposefully misinterpreting what I'm saying.
We'll all be forced into newer technologies whether you like it or go down kicking and screaming. When and what kind is a different story, but for now there's some idiotically backward suggestion that anything remotely environmentally friendly is some p***y ass conspiracy to blast us back to the stone age....
It's not that at all. It's that legitimate solutions are being discarded because they allow us to continue to live the lifestyle we currently lead. That's what people have a problem with.
no i'm not, this is a tired old tatic, "i'm an open minded conservative, but some of those environmentalists are quacks" while never acknowledging the quacks on your side of the aisle. I really don't care what you think about global warming, I'm just criticizing your opportunity to associate with quacks this is what you wrote for what its worth in the bold you attacked the whole "global warming movement" in your first post, so yes you need to go read what YOU WROTE before responding again TIA
Snarkiness not withstanding, the "in particular statement" was meant to respond to a subset of the environmental movement and the modifier "some" was also meant to apply to that portion. That being said I already spent the entire thread talking about how I think both sides have "quacks" and that the sad part is the debate winds up being between these two segments. I know sometimes it's hard to admit you're wrong or that you misinterpreted something but to continue to purposefully misinterpret something is disingenuous, in my mind. That being said, the part about only conservatives refusing to acknowledge the quacks on their side is laughable at best. Neither side does a great job of acknowledging the idiots on their side, yourself included.
did you or did you not say the environment movement was anti capitalists again, go back and read your own first post, i know you meant some of the environmental movement, the entire global warming portion edit: sorry did you or did you not say the global warming movement was anti capitalist
halfbreed, while some of your point may be spot on, at first glance (which is all I did), this is a stupid article to quote. I mean, is it really that hard to imagine a scenario where environmentalists, whose name I guess by definition means pro/for the environment, are against a technology that encourages further pillage of the environment? Sure, the technology may help clean the environment, but the point that such a technology would only promote further harm of the environment seems to be a valid one....especially if more study was done and a projected net impact t the environment was negative. Again, personally, I don't think that's the case, and I think/hope further alternative energy advances will continue with or without a technology that scrubs carbon dioxide, so we should at least have that technology until we make it to a more sustainable energy policy... ...BUT, as mentioned, it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to see why an environmentalist wouldn't be all gung-ho about it. "Yay! We're reducing C02, go to town drilling those unique and special regions!!"
