Global Warming: The New Religion

Njaco · 10-18-2007, 08:08 PM

Because this is a perfect example of the liberal agenda and mindset. The average person can't think or do for themselves so the government will. Its classic liberal. They have all the answers and we have to bow to their superior intellect. Why do you think it was Al Gore up there and not Newt Gingrich? And the answer for them is to change daily products that we use, such as cars and light bulbs, create a catch-phrase, like "going Green" and life will be rosy. Of course we have to pay for it because they'll outlaw or regulate these changes. And thats the scam. Its a Win/Win for the democrats. Watch how they demi-god the conservatives who oppose GW. Same thing happening now with this veto of the Child Care bill. The Repubs are so bad they don't care about children, but has anybody read what the bill contains? The liberals are masters at this type of politiking.

pbfoot · 10-18-2007, 08:15 PM

You aren't the only country in the world . I've got my own politics to watch . Will the minority conservitive gov't force an early election so they can get a majority. Our federal elections can be called quickly and held within 45 days if the parliment has a vote of no confidence. A much saner system rather then watching politicians posture for 2 long years and say nothing

Njaco · 10-19-2007, 06:35 AM

Thats my point, Pb. We aren't the only country but the politicians here want to think that we're the only ones who can solve it. What about all the other countries and their industries? It riduculus to think the WORLD governments will change for GW. Not going to happen.

renrich · 10-19-2007, 07:53 AM

PB, you failed to understand that I was using the seasonal change in climate as a example. Don't patronise me as I believe I understand the size of the earth just as well as you do. My point is that the climate everywhere changes every year with the seasons. The geological record (I happen to have a degree in geology) shows that climate changes have taken place regularly as far back as the geological record exists. Furthermore, if you do not understand that many of the people pushing "climate change"(the new catch word) have a politcal agenda, then you and I must agree to disagree. By the way, I believe I understand which side of the political spectrum you favor and surely you understand my leanings.

Civettone · 10-19-2007, 12:53 PM

Renrich, I happen to have a degree in archaeology so sure there were always climate changes. But that doesn't mean this one is also a natural phenomenon. Please take a quick look at the Fourth Assessment Report by the IPCC. It really leaves no doubt.

Quote:

Furthermore, if you do not understand that many of the people pushing "climate change"(the new catch word) have a politcal agenda, then you and I must agree to disagree.

There are politicians on both sides who have their own agenda. So?
Kris

renrich · 10-19-2007, 01:27 PM

Kris, I don't mean to say that I am any kind of authority on any subject such as geology, archeology or climate change. I only cited my degree as a reply to a post which indicated that I did not understand things in a context larger than my own neighborhood. The one thing I might consider myself to be an authority on, having lived a long time and also being a "shade tree" historian, is human nature and politics. I have had a lot of practical, hands on experience with the politics of the environmental movement. They are almost always leftists, elitists and consider themselves to be the only ones fit to control everyone else. They also believe that the "end justifies the means." Sound familiar? Their environmentalism is a facade and what they truly want to do is control growth which usually means no growth. They have little or no faith in capitalism. They absolutely do not understand economics and why we enjoy such a high standard of living here in the US. Sure, politics is in play on both sides of the GW question but my opinion is that the conservatives in the argument are much more in touch with reality.

Njaco · 10-19-2007, 01:33 PM

Came across this today and will try to verify but....

If every Industrial country used the $400 billion dollars that are proposed to change GW, the effect would only amount to 7/100 of a per cent. Thats effective. Will try to explore further.

Matt308 · 10-19-2007, 03:51 PM

I wouldn't say stupid. That's a little strong PB. Everyone has a philosophical bent, whether they wish to admit it or are smart enough to recognize it. Many people (subject matter experts) involved in the global warming discussion that are espousing the anthropogenic argument also embrace other big gov't agendas. The idea that all corporations that make obscene profits at the expense of the planet and the human population goes hand in hand with many of the more radical GW theories. The idea that only the gov't can smite these evil corporations down and redistribute their wealth since the world economy must be zero sum game. They are part and parcel to a push for world socialism.

To point out these agendas, whether perversely overt or subconscioiusly providing framework for argument, is NOT stupid.

pbfoot · 10-19-2007, 04:38 PM

It's deja vu again
In retrospect that point about profits and the planet hit pretty close to home here , were the people dumping dioxins and other such hazardous waste in the place i swam when I was a kid worried about profits or just unaware of what they were doing . Was Lois Gibbs a tree hugger liberal ?because thats what she was called . The auto industry said installing emissions controls on cars was cost prohibitive .
GM argued about making their motors run on lead free gas.
GM put the cheapest and cleanest mass transit systems out of business when in partership with Firestone, Standard Oil , Philips formed a company called National City Lines which bought up 100 street car companies in 45 cities removed the street cars and replaced them with GM Buses . Toronto still uses the street cars and it is clean and very efficient
Sorry to use GM but it's such an easy topic

Matt308 · 10-19-2007, 04:43 PM

Yep. And Ralph Nader and the Corvair. We can all come up with examples of abuse all the way down to our own behaviour. No one is arguing that Pb.

pbfoot · 10-19-2007, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

Yep. And Ralph Nader and the Corvair. We can all come up with examples of abuse all the way down to our own behaviour. No one is arguing that Pb.

Not me I can walk on water
But we do need to monitor these things or they can get out of control and unfortunately that is why we pay taxes so impartial

people can legislate to prevent this crap. To often we close the barn door after the horse has left

renrich · 10-19-2007, 05:13 PM

Impartial people. If you find one, let me know.

Civettone · 10-20-2007, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

Kris, I don't mean to say that I am any kind of authority on any subject such as geology, archeology or climate change. I only cited my degree as a reply to a post which indicated that I did not understand things in a context larger than my own neighborhood. The one thing I might consider myself to be an authority on, having lived a long time and also being a "shade tree" historian, is human nature and politics. I have had a lot of practical, hands on experience with the politics of the environmental movement. They are almost always leftists, elitists and consider themselves to be the only ones fit to control everyone else. They also believe that the "end justifies the means." Sound familiar? Their environmentalism is a facade and what they truly want to do is control growth which usually means no growth. They have little or no faith in capitalism. They absolutely do not understand economics and why we enjoy such a high standard of living here in the US. Sure, politics is in play on both sides of the GW question but my opinion is that the conservatives in the argument are much more in touch with reality.

Perhaps that's an American thing then. You should look at the situation in Scandinavia where an ecologically sustainable economy has long time been preferred, where the research into environmental friendly industry and products have actually improved the economy and fueled competitiveness. According to a Harvard-Oxford research the same open-minded progressive way of thinking towards environmentalism is the key to their economical success and the reason why a country like Finland has the best competitive economy in the world.

It's an old myth that environmentalism will lead to a loss of jobs or will hurt the economy. That's been long established in Europe - which has implemented Kyoto years ago - but still seems to hit through in America.
Kris

tpikdave · 10-21-2007, 12:37 AM

I seem to remember something about certain college degrees as related to a cup of coffee? Can't quite nail it down in memory but I do remember that those with engineering degrees got their coffee free or something?

Njaco · 10-21-2007, 03:51 AM

What is everybody's "Carbon Footprint"?

try this....
Carbon Footprint

That is what gets me most. Al Gore's carbon footprint, the gauge they say every individual can use to reduce GW, is horrible. He takes single jets to zoom around the world and jets are considered the highest for carbon emmissions. One of his houses uses more energy than an average home. And the little Nobel party he threw had a carbon foorprint as big as Sasquatch. He's a fake and wants us to believe his drivel. I hate hypocrites.