• 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!

Top Climate Skeptic Reverses Course, Now Urges Bold Action

jujuman13 said:
Au contraire, the debate has not really started, up till now we have merely heard a slanging match, only when we begin to have a reasoned discussion will some semblance of order be the outcome.
Click to expand...

There has been reasonable discussion and enough "stuff" to make anyone seriously interested in the truth... think a little.

.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Actually its more of the "they do not believe a word of what they preach" defense.
Click to expand...

Show me where any of those people are actually advocating living in a mud hut with no power? I hear about "warmist think we have to burn all the SUV's and only ride bicycles!" But I hear that from the denialists all the time - when I actually chase down the real story it is someone saying "you know it would be healthier and help the environment if we cycled more."
 
jamesrage said:
5 Ways People Are Trying to Save the World (That Don't Work) | Cracked.com
#1.
Buying Carbon Offsets

Why People Do It:

Unless you think it would be awesome to have have Earth turn into freaking Tatooine, you're probably in favor of stopping global warming.

Carbon offsets are supposed to make you carbon neutral, by paying to have someone else reduce their carbon dioxide output in an amount equal to the amount you are putting into the air with your decadent, Hummer-driving lifestyle.

Why They Shouldn't:

At the end of the day, much like buying your girlfriend a bracelet after a night in the champagne room, it's debatable whether you are doing anything except paying to clear your own guilty conscience.

You're buying a promise from someone else that they are going to reduce their own carbon emissions by a certain amount. The trouble is that currently there is no standard or authority that monitors the offsets.

Investigations found that often, people buying offsets have bought worthless promises. Even when the company offering the offset follows through, there still might not be any additional benefit because the company who took your credits was already planning to reduce its emissions anyway.

Take, for example, the company that sold carbon offsets based on a plan to reduce methane gas at a landfill. It sounded great until investigations revealed that the methane reduction plan was in place long before the offsets were sold. That part of the plan is all well and good, but it completely destroys the whole concept of buying and selling carbon offsets. Nothing was being "offset."


Read more: 5 Ways People Are Trying to Save the World (That Don't Work) | Cracked.com


The catholic church was not providing a house for the priest or bishop to live in, they are providing him a mansion. Jesus did live a in a mansion, Jesus didn't turn water into wine for the hell of it.



I have no idea why those pagans insist on him having his own nation.
Click to expand...

AAAAAAAND we are back to cartoons.

Oh! Well I suppose not everyone can understand science
 
bowerbird said:
AAAAAAAND we are back to cartoons.

Oh! Well I suppose not everyone can understand science
Click to expand...

What makes you think that recognizing the problems with the carbon offset "industry" means that someone doesn't understand science?
 
RightinNYC said:
What makes you think that recognizing the problems with the carbon offset "industry" means that someone doesn't understand science?
Click to expand...

Well for a start I have found damned few denialists who could tell a peer reviewed paper from Peed on tissue paper
 
Last edited:
bowerbird said:
Show me where any of those people are actually advocating living in a mud hut with no power? I hear about "warmist think we have to burn all the SUV's and only ride bicycles!" But I hear that from the denialists all the time - when I actually chase down the real story it is someone saying "you know it would be healthier and help the environment if we cycled more."
Click to expand...

I never said they had to live in grass huts with no power. So how are you going to make this leap from a 20 plus room mansion to a grass hut?They don't make anything in between near the bottom like a two or three bedroom house or apartments?
If all of these religious leaders from Al Gore to the bishop in Chicago were living in normal or modest homes then they would not be called the hypocrites that they are.You religious enviro-nuts crack me up to sit there piss bitch and moan how man is causing global warming. Yet you are fine that one of your biggest religious leaders in the man made global warming fairy tale religion living in a home big enough to be an apartment complex for several to a dozen families and has more than one vehicle and then you try to claim oh he is buying carbon offsets. If the man believed a word of what he preached he wouldn't live in a mansion period because it takes a lot more energy for a mansion than a average a two or 3 bedroom home regardless of the green technology you use. In the christian religion there is no such thing as sin offsets where you can sin all you want and pay someone else to not sin in your place and some people to run a homeless shelter or two. So why should carbon offsets work in the man made global warming religion,especially when it comes to one of the biggest religious leaders in the man made global warming fairy tale religion?
 
bowerbird said:
AAAAAAAND we are back to cartoons.

Oh! Well I suppose not everyone can understand science
Click to expand...

Cartoons? I think you must be high or quoted the wrong post. A cartoon is a humorous sketch or drawing. Then there is a animated cartoon which is a series of filmed filmed drawings that is played to simulate motion. The article on 5 things people do to save the earth that doesn't work is neither of those things.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
What makes you think that recognizing the problems with the carbon offset "industry" means that someone doesn't understand science?
Click to expand...

Because it's always brought up to divert the subject away from anything scientific. It's pretty typical.
"Here's a peer-reviewed research paper on the activity of the sun over the last century."
"AL GORE LIED! HE OWNS A JET!"

(sigh)

Edit: This isn't to say I think carbon offsets do anything useful.
 
Last edited:
bowerbird said:
Show me where any of those people are actually advocating living in a mud hut with no power? I hear about "warmist think we have to burn all the SUV's and only ride bicycles!" But I hear that from the denialists all the time - when I actually chase down the real story it is someone saying "you know it would be healthier and help the environment if we cycled more."
Click to expand...

It's common sense man...You don't have to live in a mud hut with no power to actually be 'practising what you preach'... I was thinking, if his house was powered by solar panels, and he drove himself around, it's not like he can't afford to do all that... instead he just claims to be buying 'green offset power' but make no mistakes that even your exhalation is contributing to the 'co2 problem'...

No, no... It's not like I'm saying we should all ride bikes, it's like the old saying don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house, Al gore is claiming that sea levels are going to rise catastrophically if nothing is done... but his house is ion the beach. There are homes just as extravagant in mountainous regions.

Also, it's common sense to note that since even the most high powered computers that predict the weather for your local weekly forecast... they get it right at 50-50 a week out... and here these scientists claim that with the 'carbon models' they can predict the climate 100's of years down the road...

Then there's the fact that EVERY claim boasted by environmentalists is an exaggeration, even though I've linked 5 previously here's another one to illustrate the point.

- No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy | Environment | The Guardian (The ice caps AREN'T melting in 2035)

It's ALSO common sense that if the IPCC declared : 'ok, we've determined that man's effect on the climate is little more then 'background noise' or 'within natural variability' and there's no real problems because of it." DO you HONESTLY believe that these scientists would be collecting billions of dollars a year globally for much longer if that were to happen??

Meanwhile, there are REAL environmental concerns that legitimately effect the lives of individuals, that the environmentalists just do not care about. It's just 'you're bad if you drive an suv'.
 
jamesrage said:
Cartoons? I think you must be high or quoted the wrong post. A cartoon is a humorous sketch or drawing. Then there is a animated cartoon which is a series of filmed filmed drawings that is played to simulate motion. The article on 5 things people do to save the earth that doesn't work is neither of those things.
Click to expand...

I was using the term in it's broadest sense and to underscore the fact that you were not arguing the science or even the essence of the topic but instead attempting to put down the opposition through use of "humour"

As for the mansions - there will ALWAYS be those - what next a gripe about the White house? What there is an attempt to do with "Carbon offsets" is make those using more resources pay for using more resources. SOMEONE has to pay for maintaining the forests that soak up the CO2. Either it is all of us or we make it "user pays" with the guys using more paying more
 
Last edited:
bowerbird said:
I was using the term in it's broadest sense and to underscore the fact that you were not arguing the science or even the essence of the topic but instead attempting to put down the opposition through use of "humour"
Click to expand...

I think you were just talking out of your ass and trying to use a word when you do no even know the definition of it.


Cartoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for the mansions - there will ALWAYS be those - what next a gripe about the White house?
Click to expand...
Kind of hard to be preaching man is causing global warming when you live in a home that consumes way more electricity than the average home. I know that as a religious nut you are too blind to see this. Someone with Al Gores money can build a green home. I know that since you are a woman you probably do not watch the home improvement shows so you do not know about things like earthen plasters, straw bale houses, reclaimed lumber, and other eco friendly building materials and methods. Most people with at least an ounce of sense see what Gore doing as an example of do what I say not what I do. Someone with Gore's money can build and live in a very green home.



What there is an attempt to do with "Carbon offsets" is make those using more resources pay for using more resources. SOMEONE has to pay for maintaining the forests that soak up the CO2. Either it is all of us or we make it "user pays" with the guys using more paying more
Click to expand...


Do you think a christian preacher would get away with a sin offset? "I bought sin offsets, I pay someone to not sin so I can sin all I want" It would not work, that preacher would be labeled a hypocrite. So why should it work with a preacher in the man made global warming fairy tale religion that you subscribe to. You should be angered about the fact that someone like Gore who claims to be an environmentalist and is one of the biggest environmentalist out there telling you to recycle, the world is going to flood and all sorts of other **** and he acts like he doesn't really believe a word of what he preaches.
 
jamesrage said:
I think you were just talking out of your ass and trying to use a word when you do no even know the definition of it.


Cartoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

This is a pretty unimportant derail.

Kind of hard to be preaching man is causing global warming when you live in a home that consumes way more electricity than the average home. I know that as a religious nut you are too blind to see this. Someone with Al Gores money can build a green home. I know that since you are a woman you probably do not watch the home improvement shows so you do not know about things like earthen plasters, straw bale houses, reclaimed lumber, and other eco friendly building materials and methods. Most people with at least an ounce of sense see what Gore doing as an example of do what I say not what I do. Someone with Gore's money can build and live in a very green home.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Gore isn't a scientist. His opinions vaguely resemble those of the scientific community, but that's all. He's just a gaint straw man for skeptics to attack because they can't attack the actual science in any coherent fashion.


Do you think a christian preacher would get away with a sin offset? "I bought sin offsets, I pay someone to not sin so I can sin all I want" It would not work, that preacher would be labeled a hypocrite. So why should it work with a preacher in the man made global warming fairy tale religion that you subscribe to. You should be angered about the fact that someone like Gore who claims to be an environmentalist and is one of the biggest environmentalist out there telling you to recycle, the world is going to flood and all sorts of other **** and he acts like he doesn't really believe a word of what he preaches.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because religious concepts of sin are totally relevant to a scientific discussion. Oh wait. You weren't discussing science. You were discussing a rich guy's personal habits.
 
jamesrage said:
I think you were just talking out of your ass and trying to use a word when you do no even know the definition of it.


Cartoon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Kind of hard to be preaching man is causing global warming when you live in a home that consumes way more electricity than the average home. I know that as a religious nut you are too blind to see this. Someone with Al Gores money can build a green home. I know that since you are a woman you probably do not watch the home improvement shows so you do not know about things like earthen plasters, straw bale houses, reclaimed lumber, and other eco friendly building materials and methods. Most people with at least an ounce of sense see what Gore doing as an example of do what I say not what I do. Someone with Gore's money can build and live in a very green home.






Do you think a christian preacher would get away with a sin offset? "I bought sin offsets, I pay someone to not sin so I can sin all I want" It would not work, that preacher would be labeled a hypocrite. So why should it work with a preacher in the man made global warming fairy tale religion that you subscribe to. You should be angered about the fact that someone like Gore who claims to be an environmentalist and is one of the biggest environmentalist out there telling you to recycle, the world is going to flood and all sorts of other **** and he acts like he doesn't really believe a word of what he preaches.
Click to expand...

car·toon (kär-tn)
n.
1.
a. A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption.
b. A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon.
2. A preliminary sketch similar in size to the work, such as a fresco, that is to be copied from it.
3. An animated cartoon.
4. A comic strip.
5. A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation:

cartoon - definition of cartoon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Using the term in the sense of "caricature" but no matter we are arguing semantics - something very pointless since we speak somewhat different languages.

As for your last paragraph - is that not what the Catholic church does - give absolution?

What you are failing to understand is that someone who has the money to hire a maidservant CAN get away with not washing up. But the poor guy who only makes a minimum wage had better clean his own dishes or risk Salmonella.

Actually a better comparison would be to go back to the days when there were no sewers - the rich had nicer neighbourhoods because they could afford to hire someone to take out the night soil. The poor just threw it out the window on the basis that they could not afford to have it taken away and other people did it too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom