What's new

Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
Because the political left which is in bed with the environmental lobby( part of their voting base) has turned climate study into a political issue.
It is a political issue because the first thing that came of it was a UN supported 'carbon tax'.
Then we had (knee) Cap and (tax) Trade. Obama and his pie in the sky "green energy" nonsense and his unceasing need to ram his version of conservation down our throats.
If you do not think the alleged global warming issue will not become a part of Obama's upcoming fall campaign strategy, you're in la la land.
 

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
You'll have to ask the skeptics/deniers, they're the ones trying to pretend that charges of "socialism" aren't "politicizing the issue"! Then when some people send PRIVATE emails about how to counter this politicization, the perpetrators STEAL THEM and act all shocked and start pointing fingers!!! :cuckoo:
Actually it was an insider who released the CLIMATEGATE emails. No matter how hard you try and smear the sceptics the fact remains it was someone on the inside who released the information. And surprise surprise it was stuff that had been requested from the CRU for YEARS! So much for scientific integrity.
Private emails have been requested for years? Seems doubtful!!! :doubt:
Of course those on the left would consider the release of the emails the crime. The fact that the data in the study was deliberately skewed for political reasons does not matter to you people.
What a bunch of bullshit.
 

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com
Do you live in an energy consuming building? drive a car? Use mass transit? Have pain on your walls? Own anything made with synthetic fibers or plastics?
If you answered yes to any or all of these items, SHUT THE FUCK UP...
 

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
What is hysterical is that all the nutter alarmists are anti-free market......which is the only way that REAL alternative energies can develop ( instead of this 19th century BS with solar and wind = laughable). Every single one of them is a k00k statist.:gay:

Oh the irony!!!:2up:


All these internet heros keep talking about are temperatures, carbon dioxide and glaciers........in the nether-regions of the internet. Everywhere else? Nobody gives a rats ass. ( as I have astutely pointed out earlier in this thread ). The only responses you get from the alarmist cheesedicks is just more science threads!!!


Just like the radical 99% assholes..........the environmental nutty-asses are.............

Amen to that. Well, thanks to their own perfidy, the rascals and their corrupt backers at the U.N have been exposed for what they are, and they have lost credibility in the only place that really matters; the court of American public opinion. Read it and weep, you Chicken Littles,; you can still squawk, but only your Leftist tools care. Your little "movement" is finished, along with the global socialist agenda it was intended to foist upon the developed world. Now take your snake oil and depart, you scheming swindlers and scientific prostitutes; we ain't buying anymore! Begone, ye frauds, (and please, take your squeaking little lemmings off the cliff with you into oblivion)!
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,410
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Why do some take belief in Global Warming as a political issue?
Because every -read: every- "solution" to Goebbles warming is political....IOW, all the "solutions" involve a few elite deciding what's best for the whole world, with no more expertise on anything than being able to get elected or appointed, and dictating to the proles how to go about living their lives.
 

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
It’s politicized by conservatives, for the most part, needless to say.

They incorrectly believe GCC is a ‘liberal contrivance’ designed to foist ‘unnecessary’ regulation on business.

They also incorrectly believe that such regulation will have an ‘adverse effect’ on the economy.

And conservatives buy into the canard that treaties and other international agreements designed to address GCC will be the advent of a ‘one world government’ or place American at some sort of economic disadvantage with regard to developing nations.

It is, in essence, typical conservative hyperbole, ignorance, and fear-mongering.



Actually it is your AGW folks who have claimed that.

Former Vice President Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth's temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

Gore's call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac's call in 2000.

On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.

Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist scheme.”

'Global Carbon Tax' Urged at UN Meeting

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would “flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund” to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish “a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs.”

'Redistribution of wealth'

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

Related Links:

Update: U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon: "A climate deal must include an equitable global governance structure' - Oct. 25, 2009, New York Times

Update: Climate Depot OPED: 'Controlling climate? More like controlling humans' - October 28, 2009 - Excerpt: Beware of 'unprecedented transfer of wealth, power and control to domestic and global governance'

Update: German Climate Advisor 'proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!' - Sept. 6, 2009

Global Warming for Global Governance
Flashback: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global Governance' | Climate Depot
Absolutely frightening stuff.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
120,586
Reaction score
15,655
Points
2,180
Really, Pattycake, it is unfortunate that you are so ignorant. Otherwise you might know that over a dozen studies, using data and statistal methods differant from that used by Mann have all confirmed his 'Hockey Stick'.
Wrong. McIntyre and McKitrick have analyzed all of them and shown they all suffer from the same methodological errors, not to mention outright fraud. For one thing, all of these "studies" include the Bristle-cone pine data which have been shown do be false proxies. They also all use some variation of the component analysis abracadabra which McIntyre demonstrated will produce a hockey stick even with random noise for data.

You can find a detailed analysis of each one here:

Hockey Stick Studies « Climate Audit


The Hockey Stick is Accurate « Oxford Kevin

The paper “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99. They published the results of their work and you can see the impact that this had on the shape of the Hockey Stick in the graph below.

So McIntyre and McKitrick have also confirmed the 'Hockey Stick' graph.

Too bad that people like you are so stupid and gullible, Pattycake.
Uh,wrong. McIntyre and McKitrick never "confirmed" the Hockey Stick graph. In fact, they thoroughly discredited it, including the MNH98 version of it.

Here is the abstract on their paper about MBH98:

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf

ABSTRACT
The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values. In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was “conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and misrepresented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.
 
Last edited:

merrill

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
92
Points
83
And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com
Do you live in an energy consuming building? drive a car? Use mass transit? Have pain on your walls? Own anything made with synthetic fibers or plastics?
If you answered yes to any or all of these items, SHUT THE FUCK UP...

Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
120,586
Reaction score
15,655
Points
2,180
I couldn't care less about cutting back on my "footprint." I would sooner waste time searching for big foot or an honest liberal.

Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,146
Reaction score
14,466
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Climate Change: The Next Generation: Stéphane Foucart, Le Monde: Michael Mann, hounded researcher

Original article (in French) from Le Monde
In early December, at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (the annual grand gathering of the bigwigs of the geoscience world), Michael Mann introduced his forthcoming book to his peers. The lecture was entertaining and the audience laughed heartily. The American climatologist, Director of the Earth System Center at Pennsylvania State University, cracked numerous jokes and made many witty asides. He scoffed at the anti-science of the Republican politicians and mocked their ridiculous statements on climate change; everybody laughed out loud.
But this, surely, is no laughing matter. Michael Mann’s forthcoming book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (Columbia University Press), is not really a science book; rather, as its title suggests, it deals instead with the war on climate science, which has at times turned into a manhunt, frequently with Mann as the quarry.
Lively, talkative and likeable, passionate about his research, Michael Mann is Conservative America’s most hated scientist. His crime is defined by two words, Hockey Stick, the nickname given to a curve showing how temperature has changed; a diagram that he will now forever be associated with.
In 1998, and again in 1999, with co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, he published a “reconstruction” of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, from the year 1000 to the present day. Using the traces of past climates recorded in tree rings, corals and sediments, he succeeded in producing a striking curve in the shape of a hockey stick. The long handle shows a fairly regular decline in temperatures from 1000 to around 1900, whereas the blade displays a sudden and a rather worrying sharp upward increase that is very obvious since 1950. The main conclusion of the Hockey Stick is that the last decade of the twentieth century was probably the warmest in over a thousand years.
“The irony is that I wasn’t originally working on anthropogenic climate change but on natural climate oscillations,” says Michael Mann. “I wasn’t looking for a hockey stick; it simply emerged from the data!”
Rockhead....why don't you tell everyone that you work a mega polluting steel mill?
You're a hypocrite. :eusa_whistle:
Because the steel mill that I work at does not fit that description at all, asshole.




Really? That's not what the regulators say. BTW did you know the company is billions in debt and on the verge of collapse? They are really hoping to supply the pipe for the Keystone pipeline. That will save them, otherwise they go tits up and you poor sods are out on your bums.

Investor documents show Evraz North America facing $3 billion in debt | OregonLive.com

Riverside dumps still in play for Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup | OregonLive.com
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,460
Reaction score
4,088
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com
Do you live in an energy consuming building? drive a car? Use mass transit? Have pain on your walls? Own anything made with synthetic fibers or plastics?
If you answered yes to any or all of these items, SHUT THE FUCK UP...

Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.

s0n.......hate to break it to you but long, long after you are in your box, we'll be using lots and lots of fossil fuels for energy.

And umm........nobody buys 4 cylinder pickup trucks.

America's best-selling cars and trucks of 2010 are...


I love when the nutters put it on a tee for you!!!:coffee:
 

Meister

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
36,918
Reaction score
10,439
Points
1,400
Location
Conservative part of the Northwest
Rockhead....why don't you tell everyone that you work a mega polluting steel mill?
You're a hypocrite. :eusa_whistle:
Because the steel mill that I work at does not fit that description at all, asshole.




Really? That's not what the regulators say. BTW did you know the company is billions in debt and on the verge of collapse? They are rally hoping to supply the pipe for the Keystone pipeline. Thta will save them, otherwise they go tits up and you poor sods are out on your bums.

Investor documents show Evraz North America facing $3 billion in debt | OregonLive.com

Riverside dumps still in play for Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup | OregonLive.com
WOW! I guess rockhead is as gullible as everyone thought. No wonder he falls for all the environuts rhetoric.
 

merrill

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
92
Points
83
Do you live in an energy consuming building? drive a car? Use mass transit? Have pain on your walls? Own anything made with synthetic fibers or plastics?
If you answered yes to any or all of these items, SHUT THE FUCK UP...

Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.

s0n.......hate to break it to you but long, long after you are in your box, we'll be using lots and lots of fossil fuels for energy.

And umm........nobody buys 4 cylinder pickup trucks.

America's best-selling cars and trucks of 2010 are...


I love when the nutters put it on a tee for you!!!:coffee:
Cars number 3-9 are fuel efficient vehicles. These cars total wayyyyyy more than one or two.... so it looks.

I love 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota trucks which is why we have two. In fact I consider them quite practical. Enough power,easy to park,haul all we need to including a trailer and easy enough on gasoline. 5 speeds are more fun.
 

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
And consider this:

While global warming has been a concern for many many many many many many many decades some things are for certain:

1. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions of humans polluting planet earth

2. Never before has there been billions upon billions of gasoline burning vehicles
spewing pollution into the atmosphere

3. Never before has there been billions of homes demanding energy from polluting sources

4. Never before has there been billions of buildings demanding energy from polluting sources

5. Never before has there been billions of polluting energy generating sources

6. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans supporting the clearing of the rainforest for food products not knowing the long term impact of removing massive numbers of trees and medicinal plants.

7. Never before has planet earth been expected to absorb tons and tons and tons and tons of pollution with human beings having no idea what the impact might be.

8. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of human beings believing THEIR pollution is having zero impact ....... can we say ignorance is bliss.

9. Never before has there been billions upon billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of humans applying millions of gallons and or pounds of toxic chemicals to the landscapes.



Sloan's proposal for an electric car fee met with skepticism / LJWorld.com
Do you live in an energy consuming building? drive a car? Use mass transit? Have pain on your walls? Own anything made with synthetic fibers or plastics?
If you answered yes to any or all of these items, SHUT THE FUCK UP...

Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.
NO....You started this. And like all of you tree hugging wing nuts, you always find ways to squirm away from your responsibilities.
I am not letting go of this.
Now, you talk the talk. You WILL walk the walk....Al of those nice things you described, They cost tons of money up front. They must be manufactured. Most of the manufacturing process involves the use of......OMG!!!! Petro-chemicals.
There is no escape. You people are so adept at calling attention to yourselves yet when the details come to light ,you're no different than anyone else.
You are like the label and title conscious yuppies of the 80's.. It's all about "hey look at me!!!!"..
Style over substance..
Here's some examples....The wealthy business person who flies alone on a private jet which can seat 15 people because he is in a hurry to get to a conference on energy conservation.
Of the douche bag who has a Greenpeace sticker on the bumper of his......SUV.... AND throws a spent cigarette butt out onto the pavement.
Or the ever environmentally conscious former Vice President who jets around the globe showing photos of Polar Bears floating about on chunks of ice to allege melting polar ice caps...Then returns home to his sprawling 28,000 square foot house that uses the energy of 20 normal sized homes.
 

thereisnospoon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
29,821
Reaction score
3,026
Points
280
Location
mid south
Don't be an idiot we all contribute. What you forgot to ask is what am I doing to cut back on my foot print?

Try walking a whole lot and getting on that fun bicycle of which I have a few. It's all about reducing our impacts.

When driving we spend the lions share of our time in 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota pick up trucks.

And we burn a 97% HVAC system which burns very clean and saves a ton of dollars = very green thinking.

And we have replaced most all of our windows and are they cool = again saving some very green bucks.

And have converted most of our light systems to energy star. Love it.

Saves those green backs which is part of the clean energy concept.


s0n.......hate to break it to you but long, long after you are in your box, we'll be using lots and lots of fossil fuels for energy.

And umm........nobody buys 4 cylinder pickup trucks.

America's best-selling cars and trucks of 2010 are...


I love when the nutters put it on a tee for you!!!:coffee:
Cars number 3-9 are fuel efficient vehicles. These cars total wayyyyyy more than one or two.... so it looks.

I love 4 cylinder 5 speed Toyota trucks which is why we have two. In fact I consider them quite practical. Enough power,easy to park,haul all we need to including a trailer and easy enough on gasoline. 5 speeds are more fun.
Can you tow a 25 foot boat or RV with a 4 banger?....Thought not..
How about a 16 foot utility trailer loaded with tools and equipment necessary to do a job? Thought not.
 

The Gadfly

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
613
Points
48
I couldn't care less about cutting back on my "footprint." I would sooner waste time searching for big foot or an honest liberal.]
You do realize the odds of finding either are somewhat less than those of being struck by a meteorite?
 

Mr. Shaman

Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
23,892
Reaction score
820
Points
48
I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
You would be wrong on your assumption. Take a look at a few of the sceptics sites and then come back and talk to us about the "settled science".
Additionally, we've got too many people who are too fuckin' stupid to recognize the national-security implications.​

March 22, 2012

Water WARS

"Fresh-water shortages and more droughts and floods will increase the likelihood that water will be used as a weapon between states or to further terrorist aims in key strategic areas, including the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, a U.S. intelligence assessment released Thursday said.

Although “water-related state conflict” is unlikely in the next 10 years, the assessment said, continued shortages after that might begin to affect U.S. national security interests.

The assessment is drawn from a classified National Intelligence Estimate distributed to policymakers in October. Although the unclassified version does not mention problems in specific countries, it describes “strategically important water basins” tied to rivers in several regions.

Release of the assessment coincides with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s scheduled announcement of a new public-private program to use U.S. knowledge and leverage to help find “solutions to global water accessibility challenges, especially in the developing world,” a State Department release said.

The assessment was compiled by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, with contributions from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the CIA and other agencies. It assumed, as a starting point, that there would be “no big breakthroughs” in water technology over the next decade and that countries would continue their present water policies.

Based on climate-change assumptions for the next 40 years, the assessment anticipated “more droughts, more extreme weather events” and floods, along with concerns that “states would not make the necessary infrastructure investments to deal with” the shifting climate, the official said.

The situation poses an opportunity for the United States to exert leadership, he added, but “we also saw the risk that if the United States wasn’t engaged in exercising that leadership, other states would step up” to exert it and “the United States might find itself losing . . . influence.”
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
57,628
Reaction score
6,783
Points
1,830
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
Because the "solutions" proposed are all political in nature.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
I believe the science of climate change and global warming is pretty solid. But I've been called a liberal or democrat/progressive on that alone.

Now, I never said I think Al Gore's carbon trading scam or whatever was the best solution, just that I believe the science....

So why is this belief treated as if reflects on my political leanings one way or another by so many others?
Because the "solutions" proposed are all political in nature.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network
:eek:

Global totalitarianism to solve a crisis that doesn't really exist?!? Who knew???
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top