• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Indy said:
Thanks for the rundown. The whole dark ocean vs. reflective ice part made sense.

WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS!?! Why not just develop alternative energy? We know we need it, oil is running out. We get dual benefits for alternative fuels, more security and less pollution, since when is that bad?

Boohoo, it costs a bit to get started. Big deal. So did Iraq. Didn't stop the conservatives from clamoring to go in. What's their big beef with spending only a fraction as much on global warming?
Click to expand...
It's argued because of one simple reason, one political ideology never tapped onto it and on the insistence of needing to be right refuse to suck it up and admit they were wrong.
Hence there's a new trend now, they still deny that there is such a thing as AGW and that it's "just a theory" but are now running on the line of "sustainable energy".
I guess the ends justify the means and if it's a ways of acheiving the same goals so be it.
 
This is all about nature proving scientist wrong.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Rev, you have defied the great Green Pope Al Gore's gospel. (In Soup Nazi voice): No carbon credits for you! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...




Speaking of, they are calling Obama's inaug the a "green event", though each person flying to dc carbon foot print will be about 2 1/2 metric tons.....


that does not count those on private jets.... :lol:
 
MrVicchio said:
This is all about nature proving scientist wrong.
Click to expand...
:lol: Really? How were the scientists proven wrong vic? And please, specifics rather than broad brush generalizations.
 
I usually enjoy many of your post Indy, though we don’t agree on a great deal. However I could not let this vacuous post pass without interjecting a few inconvenient facts. Just saying.

Indy said:
WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS!?!
Click to expand...
 Because it is a political debate website.
Indy said:
Why not just develop alternative energy?
Click to expand...
You are unaware that this is already occurring? Likewise those who do come up with viable alternatives will be richly rewarded and applauded. Hello McFly?
Indy said:
We know we need it, oil is running out. We get dual benefits for alternative fuels, more security and less pollution, since when is that bad?
Click to expand...
 Come again? Who said alterative fuels, more security and less pollution are bad?
Indy said:
Boohoo, it costs a bit to get started. Big deal. So did Iraq. Didn't stop the conservatives from clamoring to go in. What's their big beef with spending only a fraction as much on global warming?
Click to expand...
 What “it” to get started? The arc reactor Tony Stark designed in Iron Man? Scotty’s viable Warp Core and food replicators too? What are “conservatives” big beefs with the idea that multiple AGW taxation both domestically and internationally, carbon credits (hi Mr. Gore, I hear you just got your house up to the “green” standards Bush’s Crawford home has had since he was governor of Texas and you have a big stake in carbon credits too:doh) and a host of other money grabs and bureaucracies predicated upon AGW as answer? To a problem even many pro AGW scientist admit there is likely little we can actually anything about? Oh wait, I know……………..OBAMA can save us!
President 'has four years to save Earth'

US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom