• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bloomberg Compares Climate Change To Terrorism

Mayor Bloomberg yesterday compared the scourge of global warming to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. Global warming is dangerous, as are terrorism and nuclear weapons, but in a clearly different way. Where's the crazy? Did you read beyond the headline? 😕

I agree that he's not running for President.
 
Bloomberg's comparison:

"Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but "global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody."

Not GW = terrorism, but the rather prosaic notion that both are bad and can kill people. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion.
 
Without reading the article, he's right. I've been saying it for some time now. The Democrats' "Global Warming" is only an attempt to compete with the Republicans' "Terrorism."

Just more fear-mongering for votes, power, and a reason to keep that government vacuum attached to people's wallets.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster

What a moonbat. Climate Change == Terrorism? :roll:
Click to expand...

Nice of you NOT to include any of what he actually said.

Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet, the same way that fighting terrorism and its proliferation saves lives in shorter terms.
Click to expand...

The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
 
natural global variations in temperature will happen with or without human help. it is in the geological record

humans will have to use technology to adjust to the changes when they happen or follow the dinosaurs into the history books (so to speak)

if we make it that long (versus self destructing with nuclear bombs etc)
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Without reading the article, he's right. I've been saying it for some time now. The Democrats' "Global Warming" is only an attempt to compete with the Republicans' "Terrorism."

Just more fear-mongering for votes, power, and a reason to keep that government vacuum attached to people's wallets.
Click to expand...

My god, Bamacre, we agree. :thumbsup:

Snake Oil seems to be in full swing on both sides of the aisle these days.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's a difference, Harvey, between acknowledging Global Warming as a possible "threat" to humanity, and going apeshit berserk blaming everything on GW. I mean, let's face it. These days the MSM and their fans are blaming everything from a snow storm to a wildfire on GW. If it rains, GW. If it doesn't rain, GW. If it snows, GW. If it doesn't snow, GW. And on and on, ad infinitum. It's absolutely ridiculous, no matter your views on the reality and/or severity of it.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
Click to expand...

Won't you look silly when the temperature falls off this century.

Keep holding onto the faith though.
 
Conservatives duck their heads in the sand over Global Warming as much as Liberals do so over terrorism- there is no medium for common sense these days.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Harvey
The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's a difference, Harvey, between acknowledging Global Warming as a possible "threat" to humanity, and going apeshit berserk blaming everything on GW. I mean, let's face it. These days the MSM and their fans are blaming everything from a snow storm to a wildfire on GW. If it rains, GW. If it doesn't rain, GW. If it snows, GW. If it doesn't snow, GW. And on and on, ad infinitum. It's absolutely ridiculous, no matter your views on the reality and/or severity of it.
Click to expand...

There's also a difference between calling anyone who addresses GW in a reasonable manner a moonbat and only calling people who say the world will end in 5 years a moonbat.

"We should go after terrorists every place in this world, find them and kill them, plain and simple," he said. If weapons of mass destruction "get out of the hands of the countries that have them and get into the hands of terrorists, the potential is just mind-boggling," he added. And while global warming "is a much longer-term thing," he said, it "has all of the same potentials of destroying the planet that we live on. No scientist knows for sure what's going to happen, but you don't want to wait to find out."

Not exactly alarmist language. He admits it's much longer term, and makes reasonable proposals to help curb the problem before the ice caps actually do disappear completely. You would rather wait until every worst case GW symptom predicted starts appearing before doing anything? Hint: if you are symptomatic, you already have the disease.
 
It always amazes me how much the precautionary principle can be emphasized or ignored depending upon which issue it is being applied to.

The old rule of thumb from the cold war days was you took the magnitude of the scenario under discussion (nuclear attack from USSR = very bad), scaled it by the estimated probability/certainty of said scenario occurring (pre-emptive launch by USSR very unlikely but not impossible) and determined the amount of limited money, manpower, and time to address said scenario accordingly (relative to risk/impact analyses of alternate scenarios).

Any sort of rational weighing of current relative weighted risks in the context of government responses to threats to the U.S. appeared to be thrown out the window during the current administration. You don't even need to go as far as climate change vs. terrorism, the simple decision to reduce key assets in Afghanistan, crippling the hunt for Bin Laden (proven real threat), to deal with the "Iraq threat" (threat based on very uncertain evidence) makes no logical sense whatsoever given the knowledge available about each threat at the time.
 
I remember the time I walked off a cliff. People warned me but I knew they just wanted to vacuum my wallet with some crazy plan to buy expensive signs on my tax dollar to warn me. I was too damn smart for that because I have medical insurance.
 
Originally posted by: naddicott
It always amazes me how much the precautionary principle can be emphasized or ignored depending upon which issue it is being applied to.

The old rule of thumb from the cold war days was you took the magnitude of the scenario under discussion (nuclear attack from USSR = very bad), scaled it by the estimated probability/certainty of said scenario occurring (pre-emptive launch by USSR very unlikely but not impossible) and determined the amount of limited money, manpower, and time to address said scenario accordingly (relative to risk/impact analyses of alternate scenarios).

Any sort of rational weighing of current relative weighted risks in the context of government responses to threats to the U.S. appeared to be thrown out the window during the current administration. You don't even need to go as far as climate change vs. terrorism, the simple decision to reduce key assets in Afghanistan, crippling the hunt for Bin Laden (proven real threat), to deal with the "Iraq threat" (threat based on very uncertain evidence) makes no logical sense whatsoever given the knowledge available about each threat at the time.
Click to expand...

Wow, somebody who can think.
 
I'd like to than the OP for calling attention to Bloombergs reasoned stance on global warming and the long term threat it implies.
Clearly the OP did not read, or did not expect anyone to actually read the story which is clearly not "moonbat" material but the thoughts of a highly intelligent person.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm a huge believer in global warming. But I realize that it's already too late to do anything about it. *shrug* I won't be here for the flood.
 
Originally posted by: techs
I'd like to than the OP for calling attention to Bloombergs reasoned stance on global warming and the long term threat it implies.
Click to expand...

So Bloomberg's position that GW will kill everybody is reasoned?

Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet
Click to expand...

(I thought it was just kill cute polar bears and people living on a coast, but EVERYBODY! OMGZ!!!)

I'm all for getting rid of pollution, but I don't need all manufactured drama.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Harvey
The real "moonbats" are those who don't see global warming as a long term threat to humanity and those who belittle those trying to make a difference before it's too late... if it isn't already. :roll:
Click to expand...

There's a difference, Harvey, between acknowledging Global Warming as a possible "threat" to humanity, and going apeshit berserk blaming everything on GW.
Click to expand...

There's also a difference between paying lame lip service to the "possible threat" of global warming and acknowledging that the possibility is enough reason to act, now, to cut back on the man mades sources contributing to the problem.

It's like the old line the religious wingnuts throw at non-believers... "What if you're wrong?" Only, in this case, unlike in with some unseen mystery deity, there really is hard evidence that global warming is happening, and human activity is a large part of the problem.

If that majority of scientific conclusions are right, and we don't take action against global warming, we'll have only ourselves to blame for our own demise. If do act, and those science minds happen to be wrong, and we'll still be better off for having cleaned up the planet. Meanwhile, eco-industry is providing a new source of jobs.

All told, it's a win, win, win situation.

I mean, let's face it.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's! The only way we lose is to ignore the problem, rather than face it, and the last sounds generated by the late great planet Earth will be a resounding Duh!!! :roll:
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: techs
I'd like to than the OP for calling attention to Bloombergs reasoned stance on global warming and the long term threat it implies.
Click to expand...

So Bloomberg's position that GW will kill everybody is reasoned?

Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting rid of pollution, but I don't need all manufactured drama.

Fern
Click to expand...

How do you get "GW will kill everybody" from " reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet"???
And there are many scenarios where a rise in temps may bring on global calamities which might even bring the world to nuclear war.

 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: techs
I'd like to than the OP for calling attention to Bloombergs reasoned stance on global warming and the long term threat it implies.
Click to expand...

So Bloomberg's position that GW will kill everybody is reasoned?

Although it is a "long-term" fight, he said, reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet
Click to expand...

I'm all for getting rid of pollution, but I don't need all manufactured drama.

Fern
Click to expand...

How do you get "GW will kill everybody" from " reducing gas emissions may save the life of "everybody" on the planet"???
Exactly. If reducing gas emissions - preventing MMGW - may save the life of EVERBODY, he's clearly stating that MMGW threatens to kill EVERYBODY. Over-the-top, IMO What's next? Talk of extinction?

And there are many scenarios where a rise in temps may bring on global calamities which might even bring the world to nuclear war.
Ok, now I've seen it all - MMGW causes nuclear war. OooooKaay.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top