Posted on 02/19/2007 5:53:51 PM PST by neverdem
No you can't.
If you want to know what the debate is really about visit journals like Scientific American, Science, Physical Review, etc. Don't expect to understand all of what you read. It takes years to do that. The best you can hope for is a Reader's Digest synopsis.
IBTZ
Geologist: this is how we first got atmosphere on this planet to begin with. On top of that, the earth itself belches more toxic pollutions in the air than all the coal factories put together.
Biologist: Plants emit a lot of toxic gases. Plants emit the CFCs...where there's more plants, there's more CFCs.
Historians : there are more plants and trees in the US alone than there were when Lewis and Clark went through. If trees are the lungs of the earth, then the earth should find human occupation 'nothin' but a thing...
Wildlife Manager - humans actually help IMPROVE fauna and flora by exerting foraging and hunting practices where nature meets with human populations.
Weatherman - I can't predict exactly whats going to happen in a month, much less in a year. Why do people keep asking what is going to happen in 10 years? Hello!! Ted Danson, anyone?
Global warming is a political prop, period. NO SCIENCE to it at all. May I recommend Bjorn Lomborg? Or is he just too Rightist for you now too...I have read his book, and sadly he STILL makes concessions to the idea of global warming, EVEN though throughout his entire study, the SCIENCE that he encounters refutes the idea that humans would have anything but a mere nanofraction of influence.
On top of that, I live with an amateur astronomer - I highly recommend you look into what astronomers have to say about sun spots. Sorry, but all this harping and wailing and gnashing of the teeth is FALSE and STUPID where it concerns the REAL earth and science. Its just people who are too damn lazy to work for their own money and are working WAY too hard to scam the rest the world. As is typical of the Left, because they dont have anything else.
If lefties were really concerned about global warming, they'd be passing laws making the clearing of snow illegal (solar heating up all that pavement and underlying earth.
AAAAAaaaand he STill goes for the personal. Look, I can see you have been on here since at least 2001. Obviously you dont understand all of what YOU have read about Original Intent and sincere logical conservative and pro-human stances amongst my fellow FReepers...so maybe you should ahve someone give YOU a Reader's Digest version of the Right's position...oh, and make sure its not published by MoveOn.org. I hear Soros spent a lot of money to give his robots time to finger-punch the short phrases it would take to print out their talking points. Not much science where he's concerned I assure you.
Yep...and blind to our faults, just as the Bible cautions. I refer to the Bible because I think it speaks to you, but that caution is in all decent philosophies.
Democracies and true Republics don't war against each other
I don't think that's true. I think it's just currently trendy propaganda. Certainly the classical Greek city states warred against each other. We had no trouble decimating the 5 civilized tribes in our thirst for wealth and land. Nor in seizing half of Mexico when we wanted it...or in taking Panama from Columbia. The European colonialists were far more democratic than those they conquered...and far more greedy and agressive. And they didn't hesitate to battle each other. Sorry but I think human beings are basically greedy pigs with a very thin veneer of civilization and respect for law.
It's the Left that seeks to corrupt the sexual innocence of toddlers, destroy families and impose lame appeal upon appeal in efforts to prevent the swift sure capital punishment of pederast 'priests' and their ilk
Yeah much of the modern Left has gone off the deep end...but you are too kind to your own. I recently watched a great movie about surfing "Riding Giants" which casually mentions that the Calvinists killed surfing because of its supposed immorality. Also Hawaiians have a saying "In the beginning we had the land and they had the Bible. Now it's the other way around". True. Too, too, true.
Understanding the basic facts and theories underlying the debate on global warming takes years of work and effort. Living with an amateur astronomer doesn't cut it. Nor does reading endless political crap.
What about Bjorn Lomborg? He doesn't deny global warming. He doesn't even deny that it might be caused by human activity. He takes the position that it's useless to try to reverse it, that it's better to adapt. So what? His is just another voice, more educated and rational than most, but still not at the heart of the matter. He's a statistician and has never claimed to be more.
You still don't get it. You refuse to get it. You've decided that it's all a political conspiracy and that you don't have to learn anymore. That there's nothing more to learn.
but you know what, I'll give you props for pointing out the very sticking point : its true - there is SO much out there scientifically speaking that is hard to boil down to mere blurbs in a news article. That serves to make MY point - the scaremongering of the global warming acolytes is full of **** because they are willing to take bits and pieces of it and use it to HURT those who dont agree with them. Boils down to is there are an awful lot of Elitist PIGS out there who dont give a damn about the Real World and free enterprise and technology. It has messed up their Petit Trianon and given the unwashed masses access to those things they once hoarded for themselves...and they are PO'd about it. That's all it is.
The Left is NOT serious about global warming...but for other, much more threatening reasons. Combating global warming means seriously cutting back on energy use, on economic development. That means cutting back on population growth. And that means seriously attacking third world cultures, maybe genocidally doing so.
The Left doesn't want any part of that so they will first claim that there's some sort of vast conspiracy to prevent the development and use of alternative energy sources, and then claim that birthrates in the third world will automatically drop as it becomes wealthier...and that it is the duty of the first world to hasten such an outcome by redistributing its wealth - inotherwords the rich, white world must pay for its sins...and pay...and pay.
By "traditional culture", what exactly do you mean? And which traditional culture? Chinese eastern? Middle eastern? European western? American western? North African? Or do you mean all of them?
Maybe traditional European monarchies or European Socialism? How about traditional American capitalism?
Which of the above has brought the most death? Are the Americans that died in WW2 or Korea any more dead than the 15-20 million murdered and starved by Stalin or Mao? How about the 2-3 million Cambodians murdered in the mid 70s?
Are those that died when the Moors overran Spain more dead than the 50 million that have died from malaria thanks to Silent Spring & good intentions?
What "nontraditional" cultures have thus far demonstrated themselves to be superior to American capitalism in regards to the quality of life for the most people?
Ah well, enough of that. But I am trying to make a point, and am not being hostile.
I would also submit to you that being able to present loony people from the right is not evidence of a failed outlook any more than presenting honest, hard working people on the left makes liberal socialism superior. Both extremes of people can be found in any walk of life.
I also suggest that unless one has a way of altering the nature of man and mankind, wars will continue. I further suggest that more people die from poverty, hunger, disease and natural disasters where there is less freedom, not more.
Comments INTERSPERSED....
Certainly the classical Greek city states warred against each other. GRANTED, UNDER AUTOCRATS.
We had no trouble decimating the 5 civilized tribes in our thirst for wealth and land. VARIOUS GROUPS HAD VARIOUS AGENDAE; MANY WERE CONTENT TO LIVE IN PEACE ALONGSIDE. OTHERS WERE RAPACIOUS.
Nor in seizing half of Mexico when we wanted it...or in taking Panama from Columbia. DISAGREED. FOUGHT, BOUGHT and PAID FOR.
The European colonialists were far more democratic than those they conquered...and far more greedy and agressive.
MORE AGGRESSIVE? DISAGREE. AND NOT INTO HUMAN SACRIFICE LIKE THE MAYANS ETC....
And they didn't hesitate to battle each other. AGREED BUT THEY WERE SUBJECTS OF MONARCHS.
Sorry but I think human beings are basically greedy pigs with a very thin veneer of civilization and respect for law.
GUESS WHAT? TOTALLY AGREED--THERE, BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD, GO I.
Cheers.
Do that.
The jury is always out on most scientific issues. Everything is constantly questioned, revisited, revised. The problems surrounding quantum mechanics and relativity are still unresolved...even though we know something is wrong, they both can't be completely correct because there are contradictions.
Regardless, the consensus is that global warming is real and is closely related to our use of fossil fuels. Consensus doesn't mean true...but, as I stated earlier, there is no Einstein arguing the negative...and Einstein does seem to have been wrong about quantum mechanics which remains the most successful scientific theory yet devised (a large part of which can be attributed to Einstein. A great irony).
he left is making every effort to stifle debate... Of course, that seems to be the left's modus operandi on most issues.
True. But the right is no better. Self-interest, pride, political passions, and tribal loyalties trump rationality for as long as possible.
I mean all of them. I don't for a minute deny that American democratic capitalism is the best society to yet grace the earth...but I do say it is very far from perfect, I do say it must adapt to changing circumstances along with every other living thing, and I do say that "democratic capitalism" is very far from describing American culture and that many of the things we fight about - such as abortion - have very little to do with those two words. We can be, for example, democratic capitalists whether we are pro-life or pro-abortion.
I gotta crash, but I will respond with my thoughts on your remarks tomorrow sometime. Cheers.
This is so right-on, and the libs cannot deny it because they are so heavily invested in not being "judgmental," even to the point of looking the other way when things like Saddam & Sons, Kim Jong, child molesters being released back into the general population, etc., are going on, every day right now.
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.