Can someone explain the scare tactics?

[JungleMan1]

You can't lump all conservatives into one category, and you can't assume that everyone who disagrees with unfair energy policies is a conservative. I refer to myself as a libertarian-conservative, for what it's worth, and I disagree with many conservatives on many issues (though I disagree with liberals on many more)

As for evolution, I am Christian (by my own accord, certainly not because of my family) but I am not hardcore on either the creation nor evolution side of it. As far as evolution or any science goes, as any science teacher will tell you, science is constantly changing (what we believed to be irrefutably true 100 years ago is false today) and thus evolution, along with ANY scientific theory, should be taught as something we currently understand based on current scientific data. NOT as a factual explanation for how and why the world was created. Mandatory indoctrination of kids with a lack of religion is just as bad as indoctrinating them with religion. Kids need to learn about religion (not just Christianity) AND science but should not be told by teachers that either one is irrefutable fact.

President Bush can make all the noise he wants, but it's ultimately up to private industry and the scientific community to do something about it. In the 1890s there was a lot of noise about how oil would run out in 10 years, which obviously never happened. I feel that the private industry is making enough progress in this field that in 20 years the internal combustion engine will be obsolete. There is no need for the government to spend more taxpayer money on what is essentially private industry, nor is there a need to worry about a source that we are already well on our way to finding a replacement for. So yep, I say, keep on burning and drilling (in Alaska) for oil with minimal government intervention, because progress is being made on finding a replacement in the meantime. (You can already purchase E85 cars, trucks, and fuel)

Just my two cents

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Lets not beat the global warming horse again...its plain and simple nothing we can do anything about.

Yep--just keep on burnin that oil until the planet explodes :roll:

and cutting down trees

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The problem with Global warming is not just than the temperature will rise a few degrees in 100 years, but that global climate is going to change. Places that were wet may become dry and vice versa.

AFAIK, those who are skeptics on climate change don't dispute the reality that climate is subject to, and is indeed going to change. But why is what we're seeing now any different than anytime else in the entire history of the planet? The climate isn't a static system, frozen in amber for all time.

What the best of both proponents and skeptics of global warming could bring to the discussion would be a reasonable, measured consideration of what steps are economically rational to take in regards to manmade contributions to climate change. It makes no sense to demonize those pointing out that the point of diminishing returns can be reached in some of the actions advocated by either side.

Why is it different? Because history has been analyzed as far back as 800000 years and CO2 levels have never been higher. Because even though CO2 levels vary naturally, what we have today is unprecedented. Because no reasonable person can look at this graph and claim its all a merry coincidence.

Skeptics have pretty much nothing to reasonable to contribute to the debate, since they ignore facts and question the very debate. Let me catalogue a few of the types I've seen in OT and P&N
[*]Bible literalists, creationists and other retards - quite simply don't believe in science. One person in OT commented on the above graph saying that it could not be acurate, since scientists do not know what the exact temperature was in the year 396450BC.
[*]bullshit skeptics - using eloquent posts to try appear reasonable, when in fact they are no different from the above.
[*]conservative skeptics - like the OP, their thoughts seem to be "liberals=bad, liberals talk about climate change therefore climate change=hippie liberal bullshit".
[*]come-what-may skeptics - like blackangst1, these people know its happening but don't believe anything needs to be done. Whether talking about national security, fiscal policy or climate change, this mindset is a REALLY bad way in which to manage a country.

The kind of debate you talk about IS happening (for example the EU-ETS), but its happening between people who have already accepted climate change. The debate you want cannot take place while the above people exist in any significant numbers, because they deny the very issue under debate!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Scare tactics are used by both sides, no reason to single any party out because of them.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
As far as evolution or any science goes, as any science teacher will tell you, science is constantly changing (what we believed to be irrefutably true 100 years ago is false today) and thus evolution, along with ANY scientific theory, should be taught as something we currently understand based on current scientific data.

So, are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that should be taught? (as far as explaining the biological world..)

 

[Fern]

So "terrorism" is merely a scare tactic?

Hmmm.... Bombing in NYC killing several thousand, bombings in Madrid, Bali, London etc, & Theo van Gogh's murder - these are just "soft theories" lacking any real substance. No mattern that the numerous radical Islamic elements constantly state their goal to kill us infidels - and demostarte a very real ability to do so.

Nah, "terrorism" is just a phony made up threat to scare us. :disgust:

Now Global Warming, that's a very tangible REAL threat killing more people than all the IEDS in the Middle East.

You guys are funny.

Fern

 

[JungleMan1]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
As far as evolution or any science goes, as any science teacher will tell you, science is constantly changing (what we believed to be irrefutably true 100 years ago is false today) and thus evolution, along with ANY scientific theory, should be taught as something we currently understand based on current scientific data.

So, are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that should be taught? (as far as explaining the biological world..)

There are other theories on the biological world, but they all factor in religious elements that cannot be proven (or disproven) by science. I absolutely think kids should learn about the existence of these theories, but not in science class.

Neither religion nor evolution, however, should be endorsed by schoolteachers as irrefutable fact, because there is no such thing as a fact in all of science (any scientist will tell you this), nor religion. If we start endorsing pure evolution as "fact" and our schoolteachers indoctrinate our kids into believing that there is no God (by not exposing them to any concept of intelligent design, whether in science class or not), then our schools are endorsing Atheism, and that is just as bad as schools endorsing Christianity, Islam, etc.

Originally posted by: Fern
So "terrorism" is merely a scare tactic?

Hmmm.... Bombing in NYC killing several thousand, bombings in Madrid, Bali, London etc, & Theo van Gogh's murder - these are just "soft theories" lacking any real substance. No mattern that the numerous radical Islamic elements constantly state their goal to kill us infidels - and demostarte a very real ability to do so.

Most sensible thing I've read on this forum today. People's opinions on President Bush are not reasons to trivialize real threats to our country, as they are threats that will exist no matter who is in power. It's sickening if you ask me.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
As far as evolution or any science goes, as any science teacher will tell you, science is constantly changing (what we believed to be irrefutably true 100 years ago is false today) and thus evolution, along with ANY scientific theory, should be taught as something we currently understand based on current scientific data.

So, are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that should be taught? (as far as explaining the biological world..)

There are other theories on the biological world, but they all factor in religious elements that cannot be proven (or disproven) by science. I absolutely think kids should learn about the existence of these theories, but not in science class.

Neither religion nor evolution, however, should be endorsed by schoolteachers as irrefutable fact, because there is no such thing as a fact in all of science (any scientist will tell you this), nor religion. If we start endorsing pure evolution as "fact" and our schoolteachers indoctrinate our kids into believing that there is no God (by not exposing them to any concept of intelligent design, whether in science class or not), then our schools are endorsing Atheism, and that is just as bad as schools endorsing Christianity, Islam, etc.

Yeah, there's many 'theories' that can't be disproved, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the undetectable teapot orbiting the sun and Juju the west African god.

But you're totally right, we need to teach every single ****** crackpot theory anybody comes up with lest anybody be offended that their side isn't getting enough time. And hell, why do we have to indoctrinate kids into thinking 1+1=2? After all, we don't know that this is so, since all of math rests on a small number of unproven axioms. And forget about physics - if we teach kids that the world works by set rules, then we're undermining their faith in miracles and we're endorsing Atheism, and we know its a religion just like any other!

 

[irwincur]

If you are going to give your opinion on something atleast TRY to educate yourself on the subject. We actually have weather data from the past 650,000 or so years.

We can't say at any given point in time exactly what the temperature was. What we can do is make assumptions based on atmospheric readings, which may or may not be correct and may or may not be localized. These are the problems with extracting data from 600,000 year old ice - it is not perfect, and it is based on many assumptions. We can only say for sure what the temperature was on any given day for the last 150 years...

Almost all of GW is based on assumptions of incomplete data sets. Not really good science if you ask me. Which is why most of the proponents are not scientists to any degree. No good trained scientist would do so as it fundamentally flies in the face of the major tenants of the sciences.

In short, it is theory, not proof.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
Global Warming....
Oil Prices to go up exponentially...
Any other ones I am missing?
WHY do they do this???
Global Warming being the big "scarer" in the group.

Pointing out a scientific finding is scare tactics? 2006 was the hottest year in documented history.

Never heard anything about oil prices going up "exponentially", but they will continue to go up because the industry is unchecked. It has gone up by a factor of 2.5-3 since 2000. I took a road trip in January 2001 for $0.99 a gallon.

Define "liberals" please. There is no "liberal" party... Do you mean democrats?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
Global Warming....
Oil Prices to go up exponentially...
Any other ones I am missing?
WHY do they do this???
Global Warming being the big "scarer" in the group.

There are some people that still think the world is flat.
Please let me know when you find the edge.
:roll:

 

[BadThad]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
BACK TO THE TOPIC PART DEUX

but why must the liberals use such lame tactics to get votes

For the same reason that any political party does. Extreme political partisanship. It hurts America and its citizens to the point that it is borderline treason. Republicans have been busy lately, and now it's time for Democrats to rise and do it some more. What a healthy cycle...

Democrats will rise alright, by increasing taxes and worthless, wasteful social programs. It's a great plan they have, take money from hard-working people and give to the jobless crack smokers in the ghetto.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BadThad
Democrats will rise alright, by increasing taxes and worthless, wasteful social programs. It's a great plan they have, take money from hard-working people and give to the jobless crack smokers in the ghetto.

The majority of climatologists, world leaders and even the Idiot In Chief have acknowledged that global warming is real, that human comsumption of fossile fuels is a major source of the air contaminants that are causing it, and the vast majority of that consumption is in the U.S.

Any actions we take on a national scale take time to implement and will cost money. It's the price of digging ourselves out of the hole we're in, but it beats the alternative of doing nothing. What's worse is, delaying action will only raise the cost of correcting the problem, and that's assuming we still have time to do enough before any resulting disaster strikes.

Please tell us WTF your dumbass bigoted rant against taxes and "jobless crack smokers in the ghetto" has to do with solving the problem. :roll:

If you can't, maybe you should change your nick to IrrelevantThad. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown: