Nor’easter pummels East Coast with winter weather, California hit with flood alerts

Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

Uh-huh. Tell us how you personally are going to control / mediate weather and climate changes for multiple industries? What's the price tag, btw? Companies and corporations that don't respect the environment on a whole will be eliminated by their own actions / inactions..they'll be self-eliminated by nature's processes even if that includes govt agency intervention. Actions that damage ecosystems/ wildlife / general environment / and other humans  shouldn't be allowed, and besides the current regulatory stops are pretty  lengthy.  But this recent ( last 40 yrs) and current  climate change movement , imo, is the largest single attempt to increase govt. and academic institution spending ever ( or it at least ranks very high on the list). John Kerry, Al Gore, AOC.. would you guess that any of those people can change a flat tire by themselves? They're too smart to use a lug wrench, you say? I won't even address their hypocrisy. It's just one long hypothetical money trail. Al Gore had us all dead back in 2012, didn't he? I think AOC took over the death scenario crystall ball..I think we've got about 8 years left before we all instantaneously combust as a species.

 

Can you refute the fact that the earth's surface temp has only increased 1-2 degrees Farenheit in the last 100 years ( which includes the industrial revolution period)? No..you can't.. because that's a fact. I agree that the climate changes..always has..but you or none of the climate activists have the power to mediate it / control it. I have no problem with base environmental protection..until it reaches the current level of hysteria and ineptitude.

 

But continue to be blinded by your own self-interests..it's your business.


Good God. I knew you were a Republican and embraced their irrational worldview. But a climate change denier? I expected better.

 

If you think the actual purpose of environmental programs was to increase government spending...well, that's such an utterly distorted view that I won't even try to argue against it. Suffice it to say that without that awful awful government spending, we'd all be choking on our own waste. What's the price tag, you ask? A lot less than the price tag of doing nothing!

 

I'm not going to "refute" the fact that the earth's temperature has increased by 1 degree F.--I agree with it. What's really fucking ignorant, though, is your use of the word "only." Do you have any idea how much net energy that is?? And do you have any idea how much it's increasing in just the last decade? No, I guess not...or you wouldn't pooh-pooh it.

 

Of course the climate has always changed. But if you think that it's random...that it fluctuates up and down...how do you explain fifty years of increases in a row? If it was truly random...welll, that would be like flipping a coin and having it come up heads fifty times in a row, right? If man had no effect on the climate, then global temps would be as likely to go down in one year as up. I mean, DUHHHH.

 

You're a bit out of the mainstream in your climate change denial shtick, though. Even the RepubliQ have mostly come around. They only oppose climate change mitigation efforts because and when Biden wants them. I suspect that's because many of the conservitard shitkicker states are the ones getting hit the hardest by drastic weather events.

 

But feel free to believe your absurd nonsense.

Since the start of the environment religion started in the 70's we have had 

 

In the 70's we had global cooling & the world was ending. 

 

Then it was the ozone & the world was ending. 

 

We would have food shortages & the world was ending.

 

We would have no oil in 20 years & now we have more oil than ever 

 

Then we had global warming & the world was ending. 

 

Now we have the catch all climate change & the world is ending. 

 

In all these cases the world was going to end with in 10-20 years.  We are still here

 

Meanwhile India & China are the worl'd largest polluters with no end in sight & the biden gang think if the US gets rid of gas stoves the world will be safe

Originally posted by: tom

Since the start of the environment religion started in the 70's we have had 

 

In the 70's we had global cooling & the world was ending. 

 

Then it was the ozone & the world was ending. 

 

We would have food shortages & the world was ending.

 

We would have no oil in 20 years & now we have more oil than ever 

 

Then we had global warming & the world was ending. 

 

Now we have the catch all climate change & the world is ending. 

 

In all these cases the world was going to end with in 10-20 years.  We are still here

 

Meanwhile India & China are the worl'd largest polluters with no end in sight & the biden gang think if the US gets rid of gas stoves the world will be safe


Show us where Biden said we're getting rid of gas stoves.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Good God. I knew you were a Republican and embraced their irrational worldview. But a climate change denier? I expected better.

 

If you think the actual purpose of environmental programs was to increase government spending...well, that's such an utterly distorted view that I won't even try to argue against it. Suffice it to say that without that awful awful government spending, we'd all be choking on our own waste. What's the price tag, you ask? A lot less than the price tag of doing nothing!

 

I'm not going to "refute" the fact that the earth's temperature has increased by 1 degree F.--I agree with it. What's really fucking ignorant, though, is your use of the word "only." Do you have any idea how much net energy that is?? And do you have any idea how much it's increasing in just the last decade? No, I guess not...or you wouldn't pooh-pooh it.

 

Of course the climate has always changed. But if you think that it's random...that it fluctuates up and down...how do you explain fifty years of increases in a row? If it was truly random...welll, that would be like flipping a coin and having it come up heads fifty times in a row, right? If man had no effect on the climate, then global temps would be as likely to go down in one year as up. I mean, DUHHHH.

 

You're a bit out of the mainstream in your climate change denial shtick, though. Even the RepubliQ have mostly come around. They only oppose climate change mitigation efforts because and when Biden wants them. I suspect that's because many of the conservitard shitkicker states are the ones getting hit the hardest by drastic weather events.

 

But feel free to believe your absurd nonsense.


Nowhere in my comments did I deny climate change as a  reality. My problem with it all are the proposed programs and costs to mitigate / control it .. that's the area where I jump off the boat. How much of the climate is controllable? How are you / they gonna do it? Will the juice be worth the squeeze? How many trillions will be required? So don't label me as a 'climate change denier'. Do you believe we'll all be dead in the remaining time frame that AOC proposed a few years back ?; at the time , she gave us twelve years until Armageddon presents itself and the entire planet will just disintegrate if the taxpayers fail to pony up for the programs and procedures she outlined. Regulation is necessary ( and at least somewhat in place already), but some of these proposed environmental changes / controls are just flat unaffordable..particularly under the current fiscal condition. I know it all sounds too 'fiscally conservative' for you to stomach ..that's cool; we disagree. Nothin new..and that's OK.

 

You still haven't offered what specific methods you would personally back / implement to control our climate change situation.


Well, it wouldn't include burying our heads in the sand a la stupid Tommie-poo, or calling everyone who favors sustainable energy a "commie," or everyone who wants to see greenhouse gas emissions curtailed a woke liberal radical socialist. In other words, depoliticize it. That includes retracting slavish support for the fossil fuel industry. The science is a given. It's not debatable. Let's act like it.

 

Then we continue what we've been doing, hopefully at a more urgent pace. Reduce emissions, scale back pollutants, make sure watersheds are clean, and prepare for drought mitigation. Dramatically expand sustainable energy grids. Dramatically reduce fossil fuel use (yes, lots of electiric cars). Make extensive plans to mitigate serious weather events.

 

You see, you guys are using a sixth-grade debate class trick: "reductio ad absurdum." It's not a matter of "the planet will be destroyed." Neither AOC nor anyone else ever said that. But you guys misstate the argument. It's a common tactic--overstate the other side's argument to the point of absurdity, then argue against THAT--not what they actually are saying.

 

What's actually going to happen is that rich people will be inconvenienced, the middle class will be made miserable, and the poor will die. In droves. So I guess how much it all bothers you depends on where you are on the social ladder and how much you give a shit about everyone else.

 

Which, of course, leads directly to how much money you're willing to spend to stop it. IMHO it would be foolish in the extreme, and ultimately orders of magnitude more expensive, to continue with only the current middling efforts to deal with the problem.

Edited on Mar 16, 2023 5:22pm
Originally posted by: tom

Since the start of the environment religion started in the 70's we have had 

 

In the 70's we had global cooling & the world was ending. 

 

Then it was the ozone & the world was ending. 

 

We would have food shortages & the world was ending.

 

We would have no oil in 20 years & now we have more oil than ever 

 

Then we had global warming & the world was ending. 

 

Now we have the catch all climate change & the world is ending. 

 

In all these cases the world was going to end with in 10-20 years.  We are still here

 

Meanwhile India & China are the worl'd largest polluters with no end in sight & the biden gang think if the US gets rid of gas stoves the world will be safe


With all of the above predictions being spectacularly wrong, nobody can explain why we should believe the latest doomsday forecasts & why we need to spend trillions of dollars

Originally posted by: tom

With all of the above predictions being spectacularly wrong, nobody can explain why we should believe the latest doomsday forecasts & why we need to spend trillions of dollars


The current "doomsday" stupidity was pulled out of AOC's ass after she removed her head to spew this crap.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Well, it wouldn't include burying our heads in the sand a la stupid Tommie-poo, or calling everyone who favors sustainable energy a "commie," or everyone who wants to see greenhouse gas emissions curtailed a woke liberal radical socialist. In other words, depoliticize it. That includes retracting slavish support for the fossil fuel industry. The science is a given. It's not debatable. Let's act like it.

 

Then we continue what we've been doing, hopefully at a more urgent pace. Reduce emissions, scale back pollutants, make sure watersheds are clean, and prepare for drought mitigation. Dramatically expand sustainable energy grids. Dramatically reduce fossil fuel use (yes, lots of electiric cars). Make extensive plans to mitigate serious weather events.

 

You see, you guys are using a sixth-grade debate class trick: "reductio ad absurdum." It's not a matter of "the planet will be destroyed." Neither AOC nor anyone else ever said that. But you guys misstate the argument. It's a common tactic--overstate the other side's argument to the point of absurdity, then argue against THAT--not what they actually are saying.

 

What's actually going to happen is that rich people will be inconvenienced, the middle class will be made miserable, and the poor will die. In droves. So I guess how much it all bothers you depends on where you are on the social ladder and how much you give a shit about everyone else.

 

Which, of course, leads directly to how much money you're willing to spend to stop it. IMHO it would be foolish in the extreme, and ultimately orders of magnitude more expensive, to continue with only the current middling efforts to deal with the problem.


Well, what did AOC really say, then..in her very distributed news statement ? In fact. prove to me she didn't say it. She was Al Gore in a dress that day; Gore claimed we'd all be dead by 2012 when he was on his climate  tour rant. She's not alone, as she lifted that prediction of climate change Armageddon from a UN report on climate change; she was chosen to popularize their report to the US public, I guess. Sixth grade debate class is all you can offer? Lovely. I'll be back in a couple months or so to annoy you again..when I have no concrete to bust. Enjoy yourself.

Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

Well, what did AOC really say, then..in her very distributed news statement ? In fact. prove to me she didn't say it. She was Al Gore in a dress that day; Gore claimed we'd all be dead by 2012 when he was on his climate  tour rant. She's not alone, as she lifted that prediction of climate change Armageddon from a UN report on climate change; she was chosen to popularize their report to the US public, I guess. Sixth grade debate class is all you can offer? Lovely. I'll be back in a couple months or so to annoy you again..when I have no concrete to bust. Enjoy yourself.


I frankly don't care what any one person said. And if she wanted to use hyperbole, fine. It's not any different from some RepubliQ goober standing on the floor of the House holding a snowball and pontificating. The science is unequivocal. What you or I think has no bearing on it. It is what it is.

 

Sixth grade debate class is all YOU have to offer. I prefer to avoid cheap argumentative tactics. You, sadly, are a RepubliQ, and therefore immune to reason. My mistake was in thinking otherwise. I basically agree with AOC in that we're fucked--not because we can't stop disastrous climate change, but because we have too many folks like you sabotaging the effort. You'd rather build bombs and border walls and fatten the portfolios of the rich. Saying we "can't afford" to address climate change is like saying we can't afford to change our car's oil.

Originally posted by: tom

Since the start of the environment religion started in the 70's we have had 

 

In the 70's we had global cooling & the world was ending. 

 

Then it was the ozone & the world was ending. 

 

We would have food shortages & the world was ending.

 

We would have no oil in 20 years & now we have more oil than ever 

 

Then we had global warming & the world was ending. 

 

Now we have the catch all climate change & the world is ending. 

 

In all these cases the world was going to end with in 10-20 years.  We are still here

 

Meanwhile India & China are the worl'd largest polluters with no end in sight & the biden gang think if the US gets rid of gas stoves the world will be safe


basically agree with AOC in that we're fucked--not because we can't stop disastrous climate change

 

https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-world-going-end-150517060.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

We are 4 years into her 12 years & nothing has changed..

 

Why should this proclamation of iminient disaster be more accurate than any of the pthers detailed above.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now