Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUChizad on June 21, 2013, 03:12:59 PM
-
http://www.vice.com/read/if-republicans-want-young-voters-maybe-they-should-just-stop-being-bigots
If Republicans Want Young Voters, Maybe They Should Just Stop Being Bigots
By Harry Cheadle
The Republicans want me to vote for them. The GOP hasn’t talked to me yet personally, but a couple weeks ago they released a long report all about their well-documented failure to attract young people to their “brand†(Obama had a 5 million–voter edge among Americans under 30) and possible ways to solve that problem. I’m likely one of the voters they want to persuade—I’m young, I don’t particularly like the Democrats, and I didn’t vote for Obama last year. I agree to some extent with a lot of stuff Republicans say they’re in favor of, like limited government, letting state and local governments make their own laws, and a simpler tax system. If a Republican candidate for president was, say, opposed to the war on drugs and government surveillance programs, and in favor of closing prisons, I wouldn’t dismiss him out of hand, as I think a bunch of my liberal friends would.
The report documenting what the GOP can do to attract young voters, titled “Grand Old Party of a Brand New Generation,†lists several ways that Republicans can reach out to voters. “Capture the brand attributes of intelligence, hard work, and responsibility†is one, “Focus on the economic issues that affect young people today,†is another; there’s also a lot in there about how the party needs to be better with technology and social media. Then there’s this:
“On the ‘open-minded’ issue, yes, we will face serious difficulty so long as the issue of gay marriage remains on the table. In the short term, the party ought to promote the diversity of thought within its ranks and make clear that we welcome healthy debate on the policy topic at hand. We should also strongly oppose the use of anti-gay rhetoric.â€
Ah, the “open-minded†issue! The difficulty the Republicans have, see, in attracting young people is that the GOP tends to hate gays, and young people see that for the vile bigotry it is. Not all Republicans hate gays—actually, a recent poll showed that a majority of them support gay marriage, as do three Republican senators. But all of the mainstream GOP politicians with any national profile have expressed anti-gay views. Chris Christie vetoed a gay marriage bill. Rick Perry clearly thinks gays should be second-class citizens. Bobby Jindal supports “traditional marriage.†Marco Rubio believes that gay parents are less competent than straight ones. And Rand Paul—the “maverick†in this crowd—has said that while gay marriage should be left up to the states, he’s also said that he hopes anti-gay marriage advocates “can win back the hearts and minds of people.†Meanwhile, less-important politicians who nonetheless have the backing of the GOP, like E.W. Jackson, who’s running for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, go on the record saying horrific things about gays being “very sick people psychologically.â€
This isn’t a question about how to reach young influencers through social media or some other combination of buzzwords. Downplaying social issues, as various conservative groups that targeted young voters did in 2012, doesn't help either. It’s not about, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was quoted as saying in the report, changing the “pizza box†instead of the “pizza.†The homophobic, intolerant pizza is the problem. It's not the GOP's phrasing, it's what it's saying that makes young voters so turned off.
Of course, the Republican base doesn’t think their candidates should change on these issues. The evangelical Christians who are the most vocal, active members of the party—50 percent of the 2012 GOP primary voters were white evangelicals—probably agreed with Mike Huckabee when he said he’d “stick with Jesus†and preserve “the holiness of marriage.†These are the same social conservatives who put an anti-porn plank in the GOP platform last year, and who like it when Bobby Jindal writes some stupid shit about liberals wanting to ration red meat. They’re organized enough to control the party through elections, too—when four GOP state senators in New York voted to legalize same-sex marriage last year, three of them lost their reelection bids.
Conservative columnists enjoy writing nonsense about how the GOP “needs to become more socially inclusive without becoming socially liberal†or how the party will “need not only more youthful and media savvy leaders but also a willingness to be tolerant of, without necessarily endorsing, gay marriage.†The simpler way to say it is that Republicans look intolerant and closed-minded because their party backs intolerant and closed-minded policies and rejects candidates who don’t pander to the bigotry of a loud minority.
Maybe someday the GOP will ditch that minority, or those assholes will simply die out, and dissatisfied voters like me will become Republicans. But I can’t see that happening when the party is still trying to sanitize and downplay its virulent homophobia instead of eliminating it. Oh well. Maybe they’ll figure it out in a couple of decades.
-
Are you really not a republican simply because we hate gays and don't want to legalize drugs?
-
Are you really not a republican simply because we hate gays and don't want to legalize drugs?
Mostly. Don't forget minorities.
Oh, and the frequent rejection of science.
That about sums it up.
-
Are you really not a National Socialist simply because we hate jews and want to purify the white race?
Slightly modified.
-
Mostly. Don't forget minorities.
Oh, and the frequent rejection of science.
That about sums it up.
I love all the advice the republicans get about how to gain more votes:
1. Amnesty or you'll lose the next election
2. Gay marriage or you'll lose the next election
3. More welfare benes or you'll lose the next election
4. More affirmative action or you'll lose the next election
5. Curb global warming or you'll lose the next election
and on, and on, and on
Why don't you just say, hey turn into a democrat or you'll lose the next election. Sorry, I'd rather lose and keep my strongly held values than become something I am not in order to win elections.
And just so you know, if we ran things like conservatives (not necessarily the Republican Party) think you should (smallest federal gov't possible), then each state could make up it's own mind on items 1-5 above and you could choose to live in the state that most fits your beliefs.
-
If the GOP wishes to attract a younger base, then they must do a 240 degree turn. Those fascist fucks.
-
No one is saying any of those things.
What they are saying is:
1. Amnesty or you'll lose the next election
2. Gay marriage or you'll lose the next election
4. More affirmative action or you'll lose the next election
Respect human lives and see all people as people, not just ones that look and act exactly like you. Believe that all men are created equal.
In regards to "amnesty", I discussed that in another thread, but no one wanted to engage in that discussion. Immigration is broken. Rubio proposed a darn good fix that is all around pretty damn conservative (strengthen borders, require proficiency in English, make the path to citizenship 13 years). That ain't amnesty.
More welfare benes or you'll lose the next election
Where are you seeing that? Not from me, or anyone that I've heard that even entertains the idea of ever voting Republican. Small government is the one true tenant of the Republican party that could keep it alive.
5. Curb global warming or you'll lose the next election
Don't reject science outright. Concede that when the scientific community is 99+% in consensus that a scientific phenomenon is occurring, they probably have a way better understanding of the situation than those who don't. I don't know shit about cars, so when I take my car to the mechanic, I trust that he has a pretty good idea why my motor won't start. I'm not so arrogant to believe that he can't possibly know just because I don't understand it.
What you can do about global warming, is admit it exists, and start from there. Right now, we're given the choice of the party that's shitting their pants in hysterics about lowering your carbon footprint, abandoning fossil fuels and nuclear energy, exaggerate the effects of things like fracking, etc....OR the party that can't even admit that it's a thing that's happening at all, despite mountains of scientific evidence suggesting it does. And it's not an agnostic "Meh, maybe it is happening, maybe it's not" type of attitude, it's a defiant "It's not happening. We're not talking about it. Moving on." type of attitude. If the subject could be approached like adults, then we could have an adult conversation about how much environmental protection is appropriate, instead of a mentality that anything potentially good for the environment is inherently bad and not worth even talking about.
-
What's happened to the last 16 years of global warming?
NOTHING
-
What's happened to the last 16 years of global warming?
NOTHING
I'm about to burn up.
-
I'm about to burn up.
It's June in Alabama, you're supposed to be burning up. Just like you would have been in 1713 prior to the evil human destroying the earth
-
It's June in Alabama, you're supposed to be burning up. Just like you would have been in 1713 prior to the evil human destroying the earth
My theory is that it's not global warming at all, it's too many microwaves. You never heard of global warming back when we used mainly toaster ovens. I don't give a shit what Neil deGrasse has to say about it.
-
I love all the advice the republicans get about how to gain more votes:
1. Amnesty or you'll lose the next election
2. Gay marriage or you'll lose the next election
3. More welfare benes or you'll lose the next election
4. More affirmative action or you'll lose the next election
5. Curb global warming or you'll lose the next election
and on, and on, and on
Why don't you just say, hey turn into a democrat or you'll lose the next election. Sorry, I'd rather lose and keep my strongly held values than become something I am not in order to win elections.
And just so you know, if we ran things like conservatives (not necessarily the Republican Party) think you should (smallest federal gov't possible), then each state could make up it's own mind on items 1-5 above and you could choose to live in the state that most fits your beliefs.
Yep. But you left off pro-abortion. All of yours plus abortion and the Republican party wins--unless the Dems run a black community organizer again. Then, we're fudged.
-
What's happened to the last 16 years of global warming?
NOTHING
I thought the party line now was, "Okay, the earth is getting warmer but we don't know whats causing it."
-
It's June in Alabama, you're supposed to be burning up. Just like you would have been in 1713 prior to the evil human destroying the earth
The day you typed that (yesterday) was the first official day of summer, so strap in.
Last year was the hottest summer ever recorded.
And yes, the winters are colder too, which, despite "Global warming my ass" comments, actually further support climate change theories.
-
What's happened to the last 16 years of global warming?
NOTHING
Well, if you can't observe it over the course of 16 years (which you can) then it's not happening.
-
Well, if you can't observe it over the course of 16 years (which you can) then it's not happening.
In the Carter years your brilliant scientists were sure we were headed for an ice age. I guess all those great scientist CAN be wrong, huh
-
So it looks like the years of social liberal programming by our liberal educators has paid off. If that is the case, we are screwed as Americans, not just as republicans. The problem with a liberal approach to education is that by the time the younger generation figures out they have been duped, it's too late. We only have to look toward Europe as an example. Yet when some loom there, they still see success.
-
So it looks like the years of social liberal programming by our liberal educators has paid off. If that is the case, we are screwed as Americans, not just as republicans. The problem with a liberal approach to education is that by the time the younger generation figures out they have been duped, it's too late. We only have to look toward Europe as an example. Yet when some loom there, they still see success.
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
Just like you were programmed.
-
It's June in Alabama, you're supposed to be burning up. Just like you would have been in 1713 prior to the evil human destroying the earth
The colonialists had those evil F150s.
-
The colonialists had those evil F150s.
Don't forget the drones. Benedict Arnold defected because he didn't like all the spying going on out behind his slave house.
-
That is a very sad article to read. Basically, winning an election hinges on gay marriage and how well your campaign uses Twitter and Facebook. Spending isn't important. Budget isn't important. Foreign policy isn't important. No, the leader of the most powerful country on the planet is going to be decided by how "cool" he is or isn't.
How is that working out so far?
-
The fact that an article saying Republicans just need to stop being bigots to win some elections is being met with such rage at the THOUGHT of cutting out some of the bigotry pretty much says it all.
-
The fact that an article saying Republicans just need to stop being bigots to win some elections is being met with such rage at the THOUGHT of cutting out some of the bigotry pretty much says it all.
Well personally I have to agree with the goat humper.
More smoke and mirrors than ever before in campaigns.
-
The fact that an article saying Republicans just need to stop being bigots to win some elections is being met with such rage at the THOUGHT of cutting out some of the bigotry pretty much says it all.
Doesn't have anything to do with being bigots. Has MUCH MORE to do with how much free shit you can give away. The dems promise to take care of you from cradle to grave. Hard to beat that.
Imagine if all the employees could vote once every 4 years on how big of a raise their company owed them. How long do you think that company would survive?
-
Doesn't have anything to do with being bigots. Has MUCH MORE to do with how much free shit you can give away. The dems promise to take care of you from cradle to grave. Hard to beat that.
Imagine if all the employees could vote once every 4 years on how big of a raise their company owed them. How long do you think that company would survive?
People will always vote for the hand that is currently feeding them. This has been used since the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and under Mao in China. It's how they keep popular support.
I still haven't seen anyone actually expound on what makes the GOP 'bigots'. Another overused word all for the cause of propaganda and its effectiveness in the ever gullable 18-29 voting block.
-
Doesn't have anything to do with being bigots. Has MUCH MORE to do with how much free shoot you can give away. The dems promise to take care of you from cradle to grave. Hard to beat that.
Imagine if all the employees could vote once every 4 years on how big of a raise their company owed them. How long do you think that company would survive?
^^This and what GH said.^^^I couldn't have said it any better, which really hurts to admit.
-
The colonialists had those evil F150s.
My ancestors were all GM folks, except Uncle Darcy. He brought his Ford with him on the boat.
-
Mostly. Don't forget minorities.
Oh, and the frequent rejection of science.
That about sums it up.
I don't hate gays. I hate the legitimization of what I consider perversion. Be gay in your closet. Don't tell me I have to hire you, don't tell me I have to accept your deviation, don't tell me I have to agree that it's all cool.
Gay is one of two things:
1) Choice
2) Defective gene
If it's a choice, then I don't have any trouble with punishing those who choose it in a public manner. Discriminate away.
If it's a defective gene, shouldn't we be working on a cure? "Born this way" means it's a defect. Period.
And FWIW, "global warming" is utter nonsense. Not happening. What IS happening is typical climate change over the eons. All that happens has happened before and will happen again.
-
And FWIW, "global warming" is utter nonsense. Not happening. What IS happening is typical climate change over the eons. All that happens has happened before and will happen again.
But if they admit this, they can't use it to control us or make huge sums of money off of it.
-
Gay is one of two things:
1) Choice
2) Defective gene
If it's a choice, then I don't have any trouble with punishing those who choose it in a public manner. Discriminate away.
If it's a defective gene, shouldn't we be working on a cure? "Born this way" means it's a defect. Period.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/exodus-international-shuts-down_n_3470911.html
Exodus International Shuts Down: Christian Ministry Apologizes To LGBT Community And Halts Operations
Posted: 06/20/2013 6:39 am EDT
Exodus International shuts down
Exodus International, a large Christian ministry that claimed to offer a "cure" for homosexuality, plans to shut down.
In a press release posted on the ministry's website Wednesday night, the board of directors announced the decision to close after nearly four decades.
“We’re not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change -- and they want to be heard,†Exodus board member Tony Moore said.
The closure comes less than a day after Exodus released a statement apologizing to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community for years of undue judgment, by the organization and from the Christian Church as a whole.
“Exodus is an institution in the conservative Christian world, but we’ve ceased to be a living, breathing organism. For quite some time we’ve been imprisoned in a worldview that’s neither honoring toward our fellow human beings, nor biblical," said Alan Chambers, president of Exodus.
The apology coincided with the ministry's annual conference in Irvine, Calif., and the planned broadcast of a "Gods & Gays" report on "Our America With Lisa Ling," which is slated to air on OWN tonight.
Last year, Chambers decided to stop endorsing the widely denounced practice of gay "reparative therapy." The full text of his personal apology is available here.
Chambers isn't the only Exodus member who is sorry. In April, John Paulk, former chairman of Exodus and the co-author of "Love Won Out: How God's Love Helped Two People Leave Homosexuality and Find Each Other," renounced his past involvement in the "ex-gay movement," and expressed remorse for his actions.
“For the better part of 10 years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the 'ex-gay movement,' where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination," Paulk said. "At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not."
He added: "Today, I do not consider myself 'ex-gay,' and I no longer support or promote the movement. Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people."
Exodus plans to launch a separate ministry that aims to be more welcoming.
-
^^ Irrelevant.
Not a "mental" cure. Not even discussing the morality of it.
It's either a choice or a defective gene. Punish the choice or develop a therapy to change the genetic defect.
If it is a choice, punish that choice just like you punish all the other freaks who "can't help it" including child molesters, bama fans and their goats, rapists, etc.
If it's a genetic defect it can be cured.
-
^^ Irrelevant.
Not a "mental" cure. Not even discussing the morality of it.
It's either a choice or a defective gene. Punish the choice or develop a therapy to change the genetic defect.
If it is a choice, punish that choice just like you punish all the other freaks who "can't help it" including child molesters, bama fans and their goats, rapists, etc.
If it's a genetic defect it can be cured.
You could always just put them all on their own island, let them hump each other to their own delight, and then die out in one generation due to the lack of ability to procreate
-
You could always just put them all on their own island, let them hump each other to their own delight, and then die out in one generation due to the lack of ability to procreate
Cause that's how it works. If only homosexuals can beget other homosexuals, would they really need to go to an island to die out?
-
You could always just put them all on their own island, let them hump each other to their own delight, and then die out in one generation due to the lack of ability to procreate
Are we talking about gays or bama fans?
-
Cause that's how it works. If only homosexuals can beget other homosexuals, would they really need to go to an island to die out?
Just trying to help Kaos find a "cure"
-
If it's a genetic defect it can be cured.
O RLY?
Signed,
Down Syndrome
Cystic Fybrosis
Multiple Sclerosis
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Sickel Cell Anemia
Huntington Disease
etc...
-
If it is a choice, punish that choice just like you punish all the other freaks who "can't help it" including child molesters, bama fans and their goats, rapists, etc.
Using this logic, a husband and wife who choose to partake in the unnatural act of anal sex should be punished for their choice just like child molesters and rapists are punished.
Unless, of course, it's only okay to choose to perform an unnatural act when you're heterosexual, but not when you're homosexual. Because that makes complete sense.
-
O RLY?
Signed,
Down Syndrome
Cystic Fybrosis
Multiple Sclerosis
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Sickel Cell Anemia
Huntington Disease
etc...
Are we trying to find cures for those things?
Why yes. Yes we are.
Point proven.
RLY.
-
Cause that's how it works. If only homosexuals can beget other homosexuals, would they really need to go to an island to die out?
If they are able to come up with a way to have butt babies, they will not die out. Stop being so pessimistic.
-
Are we trying to find cures for those things?
Why yes. Yes we are.
Point proven.
RLY.
You beat me to it. (No pun)
Immority is the precursor to a fallen nation.
-
In the Carter years your brilliant scientists were sure we were headed for an ice age. I guess all those great scientist CAN be wrong, huh
I know this is just from "some blog", but the facts and figures are all accurate. I just felt that this summed it up pretty nicely.
http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2013/06/six-americas-an.html
Six Americas and climate change
June 22, 2013 10:58 PM | 3 Comments
If you are a regular reader of this blog you know how consistent I am at making several statements that are consistent with the near-unanimous scientific consensus that:
1) The planet on which we live is undergoing a massive transformation that is unprecedented in the history of our species.
2) Our species is responsible for this massive change.
3) Our scientific community speaks with one voice in proclaiming these facts.
4) We still have time but not much.
Consider this:
(http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/Fig1-pie2-with_logo1_copy.jpg)
I wish every American would stare at the chart above until they memorize it and fully understand that 97 percent of all peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the last 22 years agree that humans are responsible for our current warming and likewise comprehend that only 41 percent of the American public understands that we are causing our planet to steadily grow hotter and it is due to human activity. And within that 41 percent, only 15 percent understand there is a scientific consensus on this issue.
How is it that within "the greatest nation" on Earth, where modern democracy was re-born 237 years ago, where a once free press flourished, the truth of a scientific consensus on global warming is still unknown by 85 percent of the American people? How can we be free when we don't even know our own truth? And what are our collective media systems doing if they are not at the very least informing us of such fundamental scientific facts?
(http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/Fig3-PPoC_bar_chart6_with_logo_copy.jpg)
That consensus gap between what the scientific data states and what the American public thinks it states is your problem. And it is mine. And most of all it is a problem that will crush our children.
According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication there are six different Americas. One consists of 18 percent of Americans like me. We are the Alarmed. Another 33 percent of us are Concerned. And then there are the 19 percent who are Cautious. Next we have the 12 percent who are Disengaged and the 11 percent who are Doubtful. In the final group we find the deniers who would like me to stop blogging. They are only 7 percent of the population, they have 0 percent science backing them and they act like they own 100 percent of the truth. They are the Dismissive.
In 2010, the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication conducted "a national study of what Americans understand about how the climate system works, and the causes, impacts, and potential solutions to global warming.
"The study found that 63 percent of Americans believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why."
If we were to assign grades based on climate literacy, "only 8 percent of Americans have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 40 percent would receive a C or D, and 52 percent would get an F. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some people to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many Americans lack some of the knowledge needed for informed decision-making in a democratic society."
And I find it interesting that those who would earn an F would silence those who earn an A or B. Why is it that the ignorant are always so threatened by the well-informed?
The study found:
• 57% know that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat;
• 50% of Americans understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities;
• 45% understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth's surface;
• 25% have ever heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification.
• Meanwhile, large majorities incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions.
• However, many Americans do understand that emissions from cars and trucks and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, and that a transition to renewable energy sources is an important solution.
• In addition, despite the recent controversies over "climategate" and the 2007 IPCC report, this study finds that Americans trust scientists and scientific organizations far more than any other source of information about global warming.
• Americans also recognize their own limited understanding of the issue. Only 1 in 10 say that they are "very well informed" about climate change, and 75 percent say they would like to know more.
• Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change and 68 percent would welcome a national program to teach Americans about the issue.
Of course, some among us would not have the truth communicated to the public. This nation was founded by brave, intelligent men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams who did not fear the truth. Learned men who valued the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery. And free speech.
If anyone disagrees with the scientific facts, why not dispute them with evidence? Isn't that how science works after all? Instead of silencing me, why not produce proof I am wrong? The deniers have had four years to bring us their scientific data from trustworthy sources. And still they refuse. Or perhaps they cannot reveal what they do not possess.
The charts are pretty stunning, but I wanted to focus on the "Six Americas" concept. This is a standard terminology for Americans and their opinions on climate change.
The author categorizes himself as "Alarmed". I am not in that category. The next category is "Cautious", which I certainly think is a valid opinion. I would place myself in the "Cautious" category, which is to say, I'm convinced that it is an issue, and we are at a point where we should discuss what rational methods, if any, could help alleviate this problem. I can certainly understand the "Disengaged" category, which is basically saying "Yeah, it's real, but we've got more important things to worry about". Then there are the last two categories, where I suspect most everyone in this thread lie. "Doubtful", which seems misinformed, to say the least, given the data that we currently have, and then the much more dangerous "Dismissive". "Dismissive", to me, is someone who can be told the sky is blue a billion times, and their only response is "Fuck you, I choose to belive it's green, and I don't care how much evidence proves otherwise." That is problematic. That is some flat-earth society ignorant shit.
-
Blah blah blah.
Idiot.
Lets ignore the entire history of the planet and throw around psycho fear words.
Idiot.
-
Blah blah blah.
Idiot.
Lets ignore the entire history of the planet and throw around psycho fear words.
Idiot.
:facepalm:
Let's ignore 97% of scientists in a matter of science.
Idiot.
-
:facepalm:
Let's ignore 97% of scientists in a matter of science.
Idiot.
Worthless statistics. 97% do not agree with the fear mongering.
Even if they did?
99.9% of the worlds best scientific minds once agreed the world was flat.
95% endorsed leeching.
100% of the 97% (eleven eighths for the challenged) are clearly idiots with no historical perspective. Their assumptions are flawed and the height of human arrogance.
It isn't happening. Period.
-
Worthless statistics. 97% do not agree with the fear mongering.
Even if they did?
99.9% of the worlds best scientific minds once agreed the world was flat.
95% endorsed leeching.
100% of the 97% (eleven eighths for the challenged) are clearly idiots with no historical perspective. Their assumptions are flawed and the height of human arrogance.
It isn't happening. Period.
Based on what? Your scientific research, that is clearly superior?
If 95% endorsed leeching, at the time, it was the best science available. Science changes by its very nature. Doesn't mean it's complete hogwash. To think so is to have a limited understanding of the scientific process. Science is the best knowledge that we have, until a breakthrough comes along. If you want to disprove the scientific community's consensus, then come up with a different theory. If it has merit, the scientific community will embrace it. However, you're not a scientist, and therefore have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Find me one climate scientist that thinks there is no such thing as climate change whatsoever. 97% think we're responsible.
Everyone believed the world was flat, until the point that science determined that it was not. Having the belief that science is gobbledy gook is exactly like those that believed the earth was flat, even after the scientific community proved otherwise. You are the flat earth society.
I seriously don't understand this stubborn refusal of reality. Is it a religious thing? Purely political? You can't admit that you were the wrong side of an argument you were probably having for 35+ years? What are you losing by acknowledging solid, scientific fact is not hocus-pocus?
-
Just for clarification, leeching wasn't voodoo medicine. It worked.
-
I did not write this, but could have
leeching
thought for a second that Chizad was talking about his music collection and missed the "watcha listening to" thread
-
Based on what? Your scientific research, that is clearly superior?
If 95% endorsed leeching, at the time, it was the best science available. Science changes by its very nature. Doesn't mean it's complete hogwash. To think so is to have a limited understanding of the scientific process. Science is the best knowledge that we have, until a breakthrough comes along. If you want to disprove the scientific community's consensus, then come up with a different theory. If it has merit, the scientific community will embrace it. However, you're not a scientist, and therefore have no fudgeing clue what you're talking about. Find me one climate scientist that thinks there is no such thing as climate change whatsoever. 97% think we're responsible.
Everyone believed the world was flat, until the point that science determined that it was not. Having the belief that science is gobbledy gook is exactly like those that believed the earth was flat, even after the scientific community proved otherwise. You are the flat earth society.
I seriously don't understand this stubborn refusal of reality. Is it a religious thing? Purely political? You can't admit that you were the wrong side of an argument you were probably having for 35+ years? What are you losing by acknowledging solid, scientific fact is not hocus-pocus?
It isn't happening. Period.
When I was younger we were all terrified by the babbling scientific community of a freaking impending ice age because humans were destroying the environment and the pollution cloud would be so dense that the sun couldn't penetrate and the ice would creep all the way to the Mason Dixon line. Penguins and polar bears would range the Gulf Coast.
They are hocus pocusing. Period. They don't know and are making crap up to support their lack of knowledge. How long will it be until "new science" comes along and all the "global warming" idiots are exposed for the yapping dogs they are? Not long I suspect. And they'll find something else to bemoan.
Humans are destroying the environment with their awful UnderArmour shirts!!! They don't degrade like cotton and in 100 years the entire planet will be covered in a vague spandex-like material!!! Oh the HORROR!!!
What is happening now has happened before and will happen again because it is NATURE. Not us. We'll get warmer. We'll get colder. Auburn will have bad seasons and Auburn will have good ones. These things are CYCLICAL. And that's all there is to it, 97 chicken littles be damned.
As for your weather expert?
This is all I need.
(https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1890149584/spannwantsyou.jpg)
He says it's hogwash.
-
James Spann on "global warming." And this is all you really need to know.
Well, well. Some “climate expert†on “The Weather Channel†wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming†is a natural process. So much for “toleranceâ€, huh?
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel†probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against “The Weather Channelâ€, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.
-
Since I don't expect you to believe James Spann, how about your entire "98% believe" BS?
From Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
On June 19, apparently timed to warm up spirits at the Rio+20 meetings at the U.N. Conference on Sustainability that began the following day, Senator John Kerry gave a sizzling 55-minute indictment on the Senate floor of those who challenge global warming crisis claims. He referred to a “calculated campaign of disinformationâ€, which he said “…has steadily beaten back the consensus momentum [italics added] for action on climate change and replaced it with timidity proponents in the face of millions of dollars of phony, contrived ‘talking points’, illogical and wholly unscientific propositions, and a general scorn for the truth wrapped in false threats about job loss and tax increase.†In his speech, Kerry called for the public to be “pounding on the doors of Congress†to act, and cataloged global perils such as drought, floods, wildfires, threatened coastlines, disease risks and more, noting “the danger we face could not be more real.â€
Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats? Yes, he’s entirely correct on both accounts… but in the exact opposite direction that he, supported by representations in the “mainstream mediaâ€, has indicated.
Last August, Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen scorned then-presidential candidate Rick Perry for publicly stating that he stood with an increasing number of scientists who have challenged the existence of man-made global warming threats. According to Cohen, “There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think they are).â€
This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics†still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.
As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).†And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.†Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.
So where did that famous “consensus†claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming†come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes†to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists†referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yesâ€.
SHORT ANSWER - The bogus "98%" is actually just 75 of nearly 11,000 respondents. That's not 98% of anything.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?†Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age†in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?†So what constitutes “significant� Does “changing†include both cooling and warming… and for both “better†and “worse� And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.â€
Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.†Accordingly, those who do receive support typically get more time free of teaching responsibilities, providing more time available for publishing activities.
Consider the National Academy of Sciences for example. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5,856,000 for NAS to complete a climate change study. The organization subsequently sold its conclusions in three separate report sections at $44 per download. The first volume, upon which the other two sections were based titled Advancing the Science of Climate Change, presents a case that human activities are warming the planet, and that this “poses significant risksâ€. The second urges that a cap-and-trade taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The third explores strategies for adapting to the “reality†of climate change, meaning purported “extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves.â€
What scientific understanding breakthrough did that big taxpayer-financed budget buy? Namely that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, and that human activities have resulted in a steady atmospheric CO2 increase. This is hardly new information, and few scientists are likely to challenge either of these assertions, which essentially prove no link between the two observations. All professional scientists recognize that correlation does not establish causation.
The report then states: “Both the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and more detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs [greenhouse gases] should lead to warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.†In other words, the theory of Mankind’s increased CO2 output is responsible for warming because the theory’s model calculations say so…models which have never demonstrated the capability to correctly predict anything. And, on that basis alone, generous taxpayers should pump ever more generosity into higher prices for gasoline, electricity, food, industrial products, and of course, more funding for NAS and their dole-sharing brethren.
The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titled America’s Climate Choices, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer with no formal climate science training, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund. Two other members are, or were, politicians, and one had been appointed by the Clinton-Gore administration as general counsel for EPA. Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 had made public statements claiming that global warming is a human-induced problem and/or that action is required to reduce CO2 emissions.
As Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed, NAS President Ralph Cicerone is really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.â€
Some scientific society administrations are getting serious heat from their constituents for taking positions attributing climate change threats to human influences. In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climateâ€, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.â€
Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.â€
Then, in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal, 265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.†Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.
A June 22, 2009 editorial published in the American Chemical Society journal, Chemical and Engineering News, stated that “deniers†are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate changeâ€. That article prompted dozens of letters from angry members who rebuked it as “disgustingâ€, a “disgraceâ€, “filled with misinformationâ€, and “unworthy of a scientific periodicalâ€. Many called for the replacement of its Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who admitted to being “startled†and “surprised†by the negative reaction. As Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut wrote: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.â€
While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic†side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.
A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.†Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.†Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.â€
A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.â€
The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors – not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.â€
Finally, although any 98% climate consensus is 100% baloney, this is something all reasonable scientists should really agree about.
I know. tl;dr
Let me make it simple.
The 97% report is 100% garbage.
Anything that's happening now has happened before and we have NOTHING to do with causing it.
-
Since I don't expect you to believe James Spann, how about your entire "98% believe" BS?
From Forbes:
I know. tl;dr
Let me make it simple.
The 97% report is 100% garbage.
Anything that's happening now has happened before and we have NOTHING to do with causing it.
My dad, BS in Marine Biology Auburn '67, MS in Aquatic Zoology Auburn '73, and PhD in Marine Biology LSU '77, and for the past 30 years has worked as an Environmental Engineer in Louisiana says man made global warming is bullshit.
That's good enough for me.
-
From Wikipedia:
James Spann is a signatory of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming".
The declaration states:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
So basically, he is saying if the earth's climate is becoming progressively volatile, that's the way God wanted it.
I suspect the evangelicals sort of want the world to end, right? Then it's fulfilling a prophecy of the rapture and the chosen can ascend to heaven while the rest of the world burns. Very scientific stuff.
As for Forbes, I'm not surprised that Forbes, which represents business interests who fear recognition of Climate Change will hurt their bottom line, is playing the contrarian here.
Even Fox News' business analyst is coming around on this.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/30/hard-authoritative-evidence-of-climate-change-b/191610
(Video in link)
"Hard" "Authoritative" Evidence Of Climate Change Begins To Overwhelm Even Fox
A new study showing that polar ice is melting faster than before has convinced even Fox's Stuart Varney, who previously said climate change was a "scientific conspiracy." The Fox Business host acknowledged that the study, which adds to the extensive body of science showing the threat of manmade climate change, is "hard evidence" from an "authoritative source."
The study, published in the journal Science, shows that polar ice sheets are now melting three times faster than they did in the 1990s, contributing to sea level rise. On his Fox Business show, Varney expressed concern that this "hard evidence" of global warming might bolster efforts to address the problem:
Varney's apparent acceptance of this latest scientific evidence of climate change marks a reversal from just two days ago, when he incorrectly claimed that a "study from Britain's Meteorological Office" found that there has been "no increase in the global temperature" over the last 16 years -- a rumor from a discredited tabloid report. He has repeatedly cast doubt on climate science, insisting that "the debate is not over" and calling climate change a "scientific conspiracy."
But this latest study, which combined past measurements to arrive at what the Associated Press called a new "scientific consensus" that Greenland is melting at a quicker pace and that "as a whole the Antarctic ice sheet is melting," seems to have changed Varney's mind. The following chart from AP shows how melting polar ice sheets are increasingly contributing to rising sea levels, threatening coastal communities:
(http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/icemelt.jpg)
NASA and their hokum:
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators
-
My Uncle Rayford grows watermelons and sells them out of his truck. He doesn't believe in man made climate change and he thinks that most of today's rasslin is fake. The old rasslin, of course, was real.
He said even if man made climate change were true, it's going to be hot in the watermelon patch in July regardless, so he don't give a shit and wanted me to pass this along to all of you.
Personally, I think that if the polar ice melts, the polar bears are going to head south. My biggest concern is being able to lay out on the beach without being attacked by polar bears. But, it would be neat to hunt polar bears. They should be easy to spot in the wild, unless they adapt and start wearing camo.
-
Dude.
It happens. It's happened before when there were no "greenhouse gases" Sheets will melt. Sheets will freeze. Things will get warmer. Things will cool down. c.y.c.l.i.c.a.l. Forever.
"Global warming" is complete BS. And so is the "97% agree" fallacy you espouse. Reality is that the number of people (of credence) who believe in the whole "we destroying the world with our wicked environmental ways" crap is small but vocal.
They're the "15 nashanal champeensheeps!" shouters. They say it often and loudly. Sheeple don't pay attention to the details and take up the banner.
-
Not getting in on the debate other than to say I don't believe in the whole global warming thing. One thing that was eye-opening to me, and has little if anything to do with this issue, was a flight I was on a couple of years ago. The pilot let us know we were coming up on the southern tip of Florida. I had a window seat so I was checking it out. We were low enough to make out buildings etc. and the stunning thing was to see that the entire southeastern portion of Florida was concrete. Not being funny, don't know any other way to describe it. The Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area completely engulfs everything as far as you could see. I kept looking for anything green (Besides money) but it was completely covered by structures. I was thinking if something like Hurricane Andrew had taken a little different path years ago.... :facepalm:
-
High in Dallas today 88 (IN JULY) Teeing off at 3:45
Global warming=bullshit.
-
Not getting in on the debate other than to say I don't believe in the whole global warming thing.
^
That's a side.
-
High in Dallas today 88 (IN JULY) Teeing off at 3:45
Global warming=bullshit.
It was 75 degrees at 8:30am in Houston today - ON JULY 1. The high today is only supposed to be 91.
I actually had to turn down the mega-ice-cold setting on my car's air con - which I usually turn on at the beginning of June and leave on until the end of September.
Felt more like April 1 - the weather matches and must be a colossal joke.
-
It was 75 degrees at 8:30am in Houston today - ON JULY 1. The high today is only supposed to be 91.
I actually had to turn down the mega-ice-cold setting on my car's air con - which I usually turn on at the beginning of June and leave on until the end of September.
Felt more like April 1 - the weather matches and must be a colossal joke.
I am also not being very green today, Got office door open and the A/C on.
-
Again, people latch on to the "warming" semantics and ignore that climate change is about extremely volatile temperatures, not just all hotter ones. It means colder winters too. Having a 75 degree day in July after having a 110 degree day in June doesn't disprove the theory whatsoever, it supports it.
-
The entirety of your "97%" looney tunes blog was completely discredited in a thoroughly researched, well-presented, well-documented and fully resourced article in Forbes and you close your eyes, shut your ears and ignore it because it's from Forbes. Some basement-dweller's blog has so much more veracity.
As James would say...
"You done stacked BS this high.
(http://media.al.com/birmingham-news/photo/2012/04/-333086b6079a9183.JPG)
-
Again, people latch on to the "warming" semantics and ignore that climate change is about extremely volatile temperatures, not just all hotter ones. It means colder winters too. Having a 75 degree day in July after having a 110 degree day in June doesn't disprove the theory whatsoever, it supports it.
I love that theory-Its colder so that makes it hotter. :facepalm:
-
It was on Wikipedia damn it!
-
I love that theory-Its colder so that makes it hotter. :facepalm:
Is it really that difficult of a concept to grasp that excessively high temperatures is not the only factor in climate change? Really? I'm being serious.
-
I love that theory-Its colder so that makes it hotter. :facepalm:
No - it's that you had the AC on with the door open, thereby offsetting the global warming
-
Is it really that difficult of a concept to grasp that excessively high temperatures is not the only factor in climate change? Really? I'm being serious.
I know this....wikipedia says the saints are cheaters. Take that shit to the bank!
-
No - it's that you had the AC on with the door open, thereby offsetting the global warming
I keep a case of aerosol cans handy for when I'm cold.
-
No - it's that you had the AC on with the door open, thereby offsetting the global warming
I thought the Gubment wanted is forcing us to share with our less fortunate people?
-
They justmade a serious marketing faux pax when they started out calling it "global warming". If they had done a better focus group and called it "Climate Change" to begin with, why, we'd have all been right on board from the get go, I'm sure.
-
They justmade a serious marketing faux pax when they started out calling it "global warming". If they had done a better focus group and called it "Climate Change" to begin with, why, we'd have all been right on board from the get go, I'm sure.
Nope, not me. A lie is a lie no matter what the name.
-
Nope, not me. A lie is a lie no matter what the name.
:sarcasm:
-
I keep a case of aerosol cans handy for when I'm cold.
I bought a case of lysol and right guard at Sams today and I'm gonna spray it all in my off time, with my 350 running just to see if Chizad is right. And I'm gonna encourage cows to fart more.
-
http://youtu.be/LOojbp8ptWI
-
http://youtu.be/LOojbp8ptWI
Stupid.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013 52 Comments
EACH of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes “locked in.â€
A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress. He will use his executive powers to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants and spur increased investment in clean energy technology, which is inarguably the path we must follow to ensure a strong economy along with a livable climate.
The president also plans to use his regulatory power to limit the powerful warming chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons and encourage the United States to join with other nations to amend the Montreal Protocol to phase out these chemicals. The landmark international treaty, which took effect in 1989, already has been hugely successful in solving the ozone problem.
Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally.
As administrators of the E.P.A under Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush, we held fast to common-sense conservative principles — protecting the health of the American people, working with the best technology available and trusting in the innovation of American business and in the market to find the best solutions for the least cost.
That approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain.
The solutions we supported worked, although more must be done. Our rivers no longer burn, and their health continues to improve. The United States led the world when nations came together to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. Acid rain diminishes each year, thanks to a pioneering, market-based emissions-trading system adopted under the first President Bush in 1990. And despite critics’ warnings, our economy has continued to grow.
Climate change puts all our progress and our successes at risk. If we could articulate one framework for successful governance, perhaps it should be this: When confronted by a problem, deal with it. Look at the facts, cut through the extraneous, devise a workable solution and get it done.
We can have both a strong economy and a livable climate. All parties know that we need both. The rest of the discussion is either detail, which we can resolve, or purposeful delay, which we should not tolerate.
Mr. Obama’s plan is just a start. More will be required. But we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.
The writers are former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency: William D. Ruckelshaus, from its founding in 1970 to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, from 2001 to 2003.
-
Fuckem. About to have beachfront in Montgomery.
-
fudgeem. About to have beachfront in Montgomery.
I am helping to build a giant air conditioner to help prevent this from happening. Then, I shall go down in the anus of history as the man who thwarted global warming. I'll be cool.
-
The latest from 'em lyin' santists.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-nearly-certain-that-humans-have-caused-global-warming/2013/08/20/d6e4a20a-09b8-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost