It's Global Warming!

[Tarheel]

NO. FUCK YOU.

Here, buy some carbon credits.

Another thing here comes to my mind with your post, Sani; purely personally and admittedly anecdotal on my part: "educated" liberals, Democrats, and "environmentalists" gee-haw about being fair-minded, flexible, open-minded, and tolerant about this subject but it's been my experience that they are the exact opposite (and it's the same with matters of faith, I don't have a problem with someone being agnostic or even atheist, whatever blows your skirt up, but don't mock and deride my faith either...that's another story for another forum).

[Tarheel]

I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.

All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.

And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.

Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology

I'll take that as a compliment and it must be another cold day in hell that we might be even near agreeance.

As I see it environmentalists and liberals don't even allow us to help set the table on this topic with some healthy criticism of their "science" to begin with and that is the crux of the problem.  Anthropogenic climate change is not science fact and that's where they all seem to want to begin.

I'll read through the article but its going to take me a little time to do this afternoon...got work pressures so don't be offended if I'm slow to respond.

[Kaos]

Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.

Ok.  So it's real.  But it's natural and cyclical.  It isn't my fault.  I didn't do it. 

It's nature. 

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts... all that's real too.  Not meant to be stopped. 

[AUChizad]

Ok.  So it's real.  But it's natural and cyclical.  It isn't my fault.  I didn't do it. 

It's nature. 

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts... all that's real too.  Not meant to be stopped.

You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.

I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)

[Townhallsavoy]

You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.

I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)

Blocking a river is far different from some magic machine that can test when and where a tornado will spawn, prevent the tornado from forming, and preserve the integrity of our planet's weather system. 

We don't have enough sample data to predict how the earth is going to act in the ongoing climate change nor do we have enough sample data to predict how the earth will respond if we actually could control climate change. 

[Saniflush]

Blocking a river is far different from some magic machine that can test when and where a tornado will spawn, prevent the tornado from forming, and preserve the integrity of our planet's weather system. 

We don't have enough sample data to predict how the earth is going to act in the ongoing climate change nor do we have enough sample data to predict how the earth will respond if we actually could control climate change.

Damnit! Bush did it.  You had better start towing the company line.

[Tarheel]

I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.

All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.

And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.

Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology

The Dems (and probably Libertarians) are well-ahead of Republicans in utilizing technology for electioneering there's no doubt about that in my experience, but characterizing the Republicans and conservatives as "anti-modernity", "anti-science" and "anti-progress" (not to be confused with Progressivism) is utterly disingenuous.  Further, a reasoned discussion can be made on the topic of the article without mocking my faith which is exactly what the writer(s) do.  Ref. my posted reply to Saniflush before I even read this article.

[AUChizad]

The Dems (and probably Libertarians) are well-ahead of Republicans in utilizing technology for electioneering there's no doubt about that in my experience, but characterizing the Republicans and conservatives as "anti-modernity", "anti-science" and "anti-progress" (not to be confused with Progressivism) is utterly disingenuous.  Further, a reasoned discussion can be made on the topic of the article without mocking my faith which is exactly what the writer(s) do.  Ref. my posted reply to Saniflush before I even read this article.

Wow, that article mocked your faith? How exactly? That is a stretch.

I didn't see the word "Christian" or "God", or anything of the sort.

Please elaborate. Seems like a deflection to me. Or is any endorsement of science considered a mockery of your religion?

[Tarheel]

Wow, that article mocked your faith? How exactly? That is a stretch.

I didn't see the word "Christian" or "God", or anything of the sort.

Please elaborate. Seems like a deflection to me. Or is any endorsement of science considered a mockery of your religion?

Now who's deflecting?  I'm not parsing words with you on this, you're a smart guy; you know EXACTLY what these writers mean and if you don't see this for what it is there's no reason for me to continue this discussion (again, see my reply to Saniflush before I even read this article):

...
"It's hard to side with a party that's still trying to reach out to their base of creationists."
...
...
There's a reason there's no such thing as a tech industry in Mississippi or Alabama. Conservatism is simply at odds with the forward-thinking preferred by those involved in the technology ecosystem. So yes, conservatives should be freaked out that we're kicking their ass on the technology front, but they won't be catching up until they evolve as a party. And as we've seen, they're not very good at the "evolution" thing.
...

[AUChizad]

Now who's deflecting?  I'm not parsing words with you on this, you're a smart guy; you know EXACTLY what these writers mean and if you don't see this for what it is there's no reason for me to continue this discussion (again, see my reply to Saniflush before I even read this article):

So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.

It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.

If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.

[Vandy Vol]

Global warming is God's fault.

[Tarheel]

So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.

It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.

If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.

My "delicate" sensibilities are not offended here; I think religious bigotry and the creation v. evolution debate is not germane to topic.

Global warming is God's fault.

And Bush's

[AUChizad]

So evolution is bullshit, in your estimation.

It's valid to the discussion. It's not saying "Haha, stupid Christians" just to offend your delegate sensibilities.

If you outright reject evolution as a scientific principle, you are exactly what the article was referring to. It's not up for debate. Not amongst actual scientists.

And I know as we speak you're furiously typing up something about how how "enlightened" "open minded" people are in fact the most closed minded of all.

No, but I'm not going to have a debate about science with someone who refuses to believe in evolution. Just as I can't get anywhere in this discussion with someone who believes in Dragons or magic or ghosts or that Santa Clause delivers presents to children via flying reindeer.

Find a scientific text that rejects evolution, or even raises doubts about it, and we'll talk.

[AUChizad]

My "delicate" sensibilities are not offended here; I think religious bigotry and the creation v. evolution debate is not germane to topic.

It is. It's exactly the topic.

Do you believe in the unanimous opinion of the scientific community or do you write it off as gobbledy gook from "elitist know-it-alls".

The answer to that, is exactly what we're talking about here.

[Tarheel]

And I know as we speak you're furiously typing up something about how how "enlightened" "open minded" people are in fact the most closed minded of all.

No, but I'm not going to have a debate about science with someone who refuses to believe in evolution. Just as I can't get anywhere in this discussion with someone who believes in Dragons or magic or ghosts or that Santa Clause delivers presents to children via flying reindeer.

Find a scientific text that rejects evolution, or even raises doubts about it, and we'll talk.

I like your wording there; belief.  Again, not germane to the topic and, yes, you are illustrating exactly what I mentioned in my reply to Sani; no offense.

[Kaos]

You just took a big step by admitting the science isn't patently false. Would have been nice if the conversation started that way.

I agree, it is as natural as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts. So you don't believe that any of these phenomena are worthy of preparing for and/or safeguarding against? You don't believe in building dams? (Insert insulting New Orleans joke here)

"So it's real" was a hypothesis.  I'm not accepting the currently proposed model of "global warming"  in any way.

Natural stuff happens.  I'm not worried about it at all.  Things will get cooler, they'll get warmer.  One day it will all be gone.  I won't be here to see it so I don't much care. 

[GH2001]

"So it's real" was a hypothesis.  I'm not accepting the currently proposed model of "global warming"  in any way.

Natural stuff happens.  I'm not worried about it at all.  Things will get cooler, they'll get warmer.  One day it will all be gone.  I won't be here to see it so I don't much care.

But see there is no money to be made off that kind of thinking.

[Tarheel]

It is. It's exactly the topic.

Do you believe in the unanimous opinion of the scientific community or do you write it off as gobbledy gook from "elitist know-it-alls".

The answer to that, is exactly what we're talking about here.

No, it's not.

The topic is global climate change and whether it exists first of all then is it anthropogenic or natural; secondly, what degree the use of technology helped the Democrats and the Obama campaign win the election and/or why it helped the Republicans lose it because they didn't utilize it more (since they are "neanderthals").  The rest of this is an absolute red herring.

Broadly, I study science theories along with facts and so-called "facts" (also, certain religious dogma too by the way) as a skeptic but not an agnostic (not to be disrespectful of someone who holds that belief/practice).  I don't fit inside your stereotype of a conservative Republican; I would have thought that you would know that by now.

"There are more things to heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[CCTAU]

Do you believe in the unanimous opinion

I'm still laughing. We can't even get people to agree that the sky is blue, yet you have found a unanimous opinion......

[Kaos]

Unanimous?  James Spann says it's full of crap.  But since he isn't



he's obviously a lunatic.