Coach Tuesday Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I can give you 8 names right now that "with all the due respect towards them I can muster" are affiliated quite directly with the climate change environment. As much as Babe Ruth and Joe DiMaggio are New York Yankees. To argue otherwise is trolling.... That first sentence you wrote doesn't even make sense. And again, painting people with broad brushes, and simplifying every issue into two camps, is the real trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 There are idiots everywhere (no offense to your sister). But painting everyone who is concerned as a hypocrite or a hack is unproductive and inaccurate. I just explained how "global warming crowd" didn't mean "everyone who is concerned." If you still think I mean "everyone..." the problem is your lack of reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Coach Tuesday fell off the turnip truck and bumped his head. Just like Bela Lugosi. Shame shame shame shame on you if you can't dance too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I just explained how "global warming crowd" didn't mean "everyone who is concerned." If you still think I mean "everyone..." the problem is your lack of reading comprehension. There is not even a "crowd." It's a stupid label to use because it suggests a collective agenda. Coach Tuesday fell off the turnip truck and bumped his head. Just like Bela Lugosi. Shame shame shame shame on you if you can't dance too... Well done. You're a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 There is not even a "crowd." It's a stupid label to use because it suggests a collective agenda. There IS a collective agenda: to reduce carbon emissions by any means possible, even if those means are environmentally damaging. Case in point: ethanol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I guess collective agenda is the "trigger phrase" for today. Can you say.... "collective agenda"? I knew you could, good.... for... you... Is this silliness over yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 There IS a collective agenda: to reduce carbon emissions by any means possible, even if those means are environmentally damaging. Case in point: ethanol. Perfect example. Make me buy gasoline that is 10% ethanol that reduces my mileage by 10% while simultaneously harming small engines and increasing the price of crops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 There is not even a "crowd." It's a stupid label to use because it suggests a collective agenda. Well done. You're a winner. there is a collective group. That collective group despises me becauseA) i dont believe in the hype of climate change B) im handsome and smart 3) cows are destorying the ozone 4) if youre not in agreeance wkth them youre trump There IS a collective agenda: to reduce carbon emissions by any means possible, even if those means are environmentally damaging. Case in point: ethanol. whats your tske on the uk banning diesel? Diesel gets a bad wrap just because it burns dark. It is muuuuch better than unleaded gasoline. And its yuge in ag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 there is a collective group. That collective group despises me because A) i dont believe in the hype of climate change B) im handsome and smart 3) cows are destorying the ozone 4) if youre not in agreeance wkth them youre trump whats your tske on the uk banning diesel? Diesel gets a bad wrap just because it burns dark. It is muuuuch better than unleaded gasoline. And its yuge in ag Define "better." It's higher in particulate emissions...and given the UK's history with killing smogs (albeit coal-based), it's not surprising they'd be more sensitive to particle emissions. Perfect example. Make me buy gasoline that is 10% ethanol that reduces my mileage by 10% while simultaneously harming small engines and increasing the price of crops. Not just that, but land use choices, aquifer and topsoil depletion, and pesticide and fertilizer use. And the lack of ecological diversity in industrial agricultural (an Iowa cornfield is one of the least ecologically diverse place on the planet). Corn-based ethanol has a huge ecological footprint beyond "carbon" that nobody ever considers, thanks to the global warming crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 There is not even a "crowd." It's a stupid label to use because it suggests a collective agenda. Collectivist agenda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/methane-eating-bacteria-discovered-deep-171545628.html Curbing global warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/methane-eating-bacteria-discovered-deep-171545628.html Curbing global warming Now if only something out there took in carbon dioxide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) The "we have to do everything we can do reduce our carbon footprint" people who think CO2 emissions are the end-all and be-all of environmentalism but have only the shallowest understanding of it. Like my sister, who bought "sustainable, carbon-neutral" book bags for her kids...without understanding that "shipped from Tibet" is not carbon-neutral. Or the !@#$s that think my Prius is ecologically friendly because it's low-emission, without understanding that the manufacturing and disposal processes are very carbon-intensive and horribly polluting asides (nickel mining for the Prius batteries is one of the most ecologically destructive practices on Earth.) Basically, the "global warming crowd" is the bag of !@#$s that have turned "environmentalism" in to "carbonism" at the expense of environmentalism. They're the dickheads that worship at the altar of Rachel Carlson without realizing that Rachel Carlson loathes them for what they've done to the environmental movement. Asinine straw man and anecdote. Tuesday tried for dialog and got this. You can care about the environment and not be the straw man you created. Just like you can want less government spending and not be a racist. Edited August 3, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Asinine straw man and anecdote. Tuesday tried for dialog and got this. You can care about the environment and not be the straw man you created. Just like you can want less government spending and not be a racist. That's not a "straw man." He asked for e definition of "global warming crowd." I answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Asinine straw man and anecdote. Tuesday tried for dialog and got this. You can care about the environment and not be the straw man you created. Just like you can want less government spending and not be a racist. Any questioning about Global Warming is met with being called a Holocaust Denier. Nothing half-way about it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) Any questioning about Global Warming is met with being called a Holocaust Denier. Nothing half-way about it.... More fiction and hyperbole that prevents dialog. Well done. You're a racist for wanting to take away Obamacare too, right? Is the problem with this avenue of discourse st all clear to you? Edited August 3, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 More fiction and hyperbole that prevents dialog. Well done. You're a racist for wanting to take away Obamacare too, right? Is the problem with this avenue of discourse st all clear to you? He's got a valid point. How do you discuss anything with anyone who thinks climate change skepticism is equivalent to crimes against humanity? You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) Asinine straw man and anecdote. Tuesday tried for dialog and got this. You can care about the environment and not be the straw man you created. Just like you can want less government spending and not be a racist. The overwhelming majority of people have no clue in what they are discussing when they talk about climate science. That's just the truth. Humor me, whenever you get a half hour of your time, read this. It doesn't argue that the climate isn't changing, or even that humans aren't A cause, it's simply makes a factual case that the science is most certainly not settled in regards to how much each cause is actually contributing to the changes we are seeing in the climate and that the majority of the testing and studies have flawed methodology. Edited August 3, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 More fiction and hyperbole that prevents dialog. Well done. Every time I try to have any sort of discourse with the global warming crowd I'm met with "But there's consensus!" There's your "dialog" right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 The overwhelming majority of people have no clue in what they are discussing when they talk about climate science. That's just the truth. Humor me, whenever you get a half hour of your time, read this. It doesn't argue that the climate isn't changing, or even that humans aren't A cause, it's simply makes a factual case that the science is most certainly not settled in regards to how much each cause is actually contributing to the changes we are seeing in the climate and that the majority of the testing and studies have flawed methodology. You prove the point in this digression. That's an attempt to have a conversation. But above this is a gazillion posts about name calling and when one guy tried to say, "Hey I'm not with the crazy people," the response was "there are crazy people on the left." That's not a dialog, it's a Kindergarten playground. Climate change doesn't move me much but I care about the planet in other ways where it's better established that we humans can make a difference. Acid rain. Air quality. Water quality. The government's intervention on many things has helped where private industry was not moving to adapt, and in that way, it's an area where I support government intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts