And so it begins...

[Luddly Neddite]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

 

[Amelia]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

 

[RandomVariable]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

 

[Defiant1]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

You mean laws have to be passed to force people to behave the way the Global Warming cult wants.

 

[Amelia]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

First of all, no, legislation doesn't have to be passed in order to get change to happen.

And second, your response begs the question. If there was less insult and more focus on approaching things in a way people could rally behind, there could be more legislation. But people -- even people who claim to want the government to take action in response to global warming -- block legislation for political purposes.

So my point stands -- how about less focus on people who deny climate change and more focus on things which would be good policy even for those who won't agree that man-made global warming is something to be alarmed about.



Do people want action or don't they? If they do, then acknowledge that much of what has been tried so far hasn't worked very well and make adjustments.

 

[RandomVariable]

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

You mean laws have to be passed to force people to behave the way the Global Warming cult wants.

And Amelia gets her answer. You can thank me with liver and tuna.

 

[Amelia]

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

You mean laws have to be passed to force people to behave the way the Global Warming cult wants.

And Amelia gets her answer. You can thank me with liver and tuna.

So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?

You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.

I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.

I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.

 

[RandomVariable]

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

First of all, no, legislation doesn't have to be passed in order to get change to happen.

And second, your response begs the question. If there was less insult and more focus on approaching things in a way people could rally behind, there could be more legislation. But people -- even people who claim to want the government to take action in response to global warming -- block legislation for political purposes.

So my point stands -- how about less focus on people who deny climate change and more focus on things which would be good policy even for those who won't agree that man-made global warming is something to be alarmed about.



Do people want action or don't they? If they do, then acknowledge that much of what has been tried so far hasn't worked very well and make adjustments.

For any significant change to happen legislation does have to get passed, a really big legislation if we want to actually deal with the issue.

I see there are three kinds of people who do not want or care about change. One is the "throw your hands in the air and say there is nothing we can do", there is the "it isn't happening so there is nothing we should do", and then there is the third "it's the end of the world, it was foretold". The first their votes go either way or they don't vote. The second are doing as the fossil fuel dollars say and they vote Republican. The third I really don't know about. I know they vote Republican. It sounds crazy but I really don't know how many of these people there are. It is the elephant in the room. These people do believe it is happening and also believe it should happen and so any attempt to avoid it is against 'god's' will. There is also the question is does anyone actually believe we can play God. I started a thread with this as the topic. The resources we would have to commit to change climate change would be on a scale like nothing the world has ever seen before. This is it, whatever one believes, either we bend the winds to suit our will or we die by them. It is just that simple.

 

[RandomVariable]

You mean laws have to be passed to force people to behave the way the Global Warming cult wants.

And Amelia gets her answer. You can thank me with liver and tuna.

So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?

You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.

I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.

I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.

No liver and tuna? Bowl of milk ppprrrrhaps.

 

[Amelia]

Plain milk can be bad for kidgycats.

Maybe a dollop of yogurt.

 

[srlip]

like I said, do you "think" that the 3rd world can/will sign up for not using wood/coal? Then why should WE, hmm? There's 7 billion of them, 1 /3rd billion of us.

 

[RandomVariable]

Plain milk can be bad for kidgycats.

Maybe a dollop of yogurt.

Plain milk it is then. Oh, you said "bad for kidgycats", "for bad kidgycats".

 

[Amelia]

hrrrrmmmm

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

Really? What do these "experiments" reveal about the relationship between increases in CO2 and temperature.

What was the increase in temperature in the control tank when the CO2 was raised by 50PPM?

 

[jc456]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

So, do you even know what the word evidence means? Providng models and theory are not evidence, what is evidence is showing validation of the theory. Your theory, if consistent with the rest is that an increase of CO2 causes warmer temperatures. That could be tested in a lab. Do you have results of those types of tests? That is where your evidence would be. See merely showing a graph and making a statement and using the statement as evidence isn't so.

Experiment results proving the theory is what I'd need to see.

 

[Dot Com]

It's so sad that people don't approach remedies in an effective way, choosing instead ways which are good at engendering political heat. It often seems as if they care more about scoring political points than actually effecting improvement.

And it's sad that some of the "solutions" pursued so far seem like they have actually caused more damage than good. Ethanol, for example. Were these "solutions" not studied well enough in advance? Or was the best science possible used and the negative consequences were unforeseeable?

there are "trade-offs" such as using more fuel to transport say biofuels HOWEVER, biofuels don't release any where near (if they release any at all) the amt of heavy metals when used like coal does.

The REAL question is: what price do we put on having an habitable planet?

 

[Amelia]

It's so sad that people don't approach remedies in an effective way, choosing instead ways which are good at engendering political heat. It often seems as if they care more about scoring political points than actually effecting improvement.

And it's sad that some of the "solutions" pursued so far seem like they have actually caused more damage than good. Ethanol, for example. Were these "solutions" not studied well enough in advance? Or was the best science possible used and the negative consequences were unforeseeable?

there are "trade-offs" such as using more fuel to transport say biofuels HOWEVER, biofuels don't release any where near (if they release any at all) the amt of heavy metals when used like coal does.

The REAL question is: what price do we put on having an habitable planet?

The more serious you are about that question the more my point applies. The more important change is to you, the more you should be abandoning divisive stances and looking for ways to get closer to the change you want.

All or nothing won't get it done.

"It's got to be big or it doesn't matter" won't get it done.

If you're smart and if you really want change then figure out a way to move the chains.

 

[Dot Com]

How about less focus on the people who say it's not true and more focus on the people who say they're willing to consider making changes if you approach it in a way they find acceptable.

We don't have to agree on everything to be able to agree to some changes if they're approached well.

Legislation has to be passed for action to be taken. And don't get me started on legislation not getting passed.

First of all, no, legislation doesn't have to be passed in order to get change to happen.

And second, your response begs the question. If there was less insult and more focus on approaching things in a way people could rally behind, there could be more legislation. But people -- even people who claim to want the government to take action in response to global warming -- block legislation for political purposes.

So my point stands -- how about less focus on people who deny climate change and more focus on things which would be good policy even for those who won't agree that man-made global warming is something to be alarmed about.



Do people want action or don't they? If they do, then acknowledge that much of what has been tried so far hasn't worked very well and make adjustments.

I applaud your efforts but you don't seem to understand the depth of denial present in denialists. If confronted w/ an alternative, they'll simply move the goalposts. Their ideology compels them to do so

 

[Skull Pilot]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

I never said it's not true just that a few degrees isn't going to be the end of the world.

 

[RandomVariable]

This board and the rest of the internet is loaded with evidence. Every time evidence is posted, the same ignorant dupes say its not true and now they're saying they want evidence.

Typical.

I never said it's not true just that a few degrees isn't going to be the end of the world.

You mean a few more degrees?