-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republican Presidential Candidate says Climate Change is real
- Thread starter Wirey
- Start date
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
tytlyf
Not Religious
Well apparently you have 2 republican establishments here going after the crown. Scott Walker (Koch backed) and Jeb Bush (Bush dynasty). It doesn't appear Jeb is influenced by the Kochs.
I still say Scott Walker will be the nominee because all the money and media outlets on the right will convince their audience he's the one. Unless of course the establishment convinces everyone that it's Bush's turn. I kinda like this Bush v. Koch thing they got going.
I still say Scott Walker will be the nominee because all the money and media outlets on the right will convince their audience he's the one. Unless of course the establishment convinces everyone that it's Bush's turn. I kinda like this Bush v. Koch thing they got going.
Shame they can't be running mates... not so much a dream ticket as a
"wet dream ticket (well, in name only.. come to think of it, I rather need some brain bleach now)"
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Do environmentalist policies even make a difference? Any research on it?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I haven't heard of any bodies of water catching of fire from pollution in awhile. London hasn't been covered in soot for awhile. Smog is not an issue in America like it is in China. We still have a long way to go, but the results are apparent.
Which candidate said climate change is real? Jeb Bush has already proven he is loco when it comes to the environment.
Impact on climate change or getting elected?
Don't think there is much we can do about climate change anyway except adapt.
To get elected, you just tell people what they want to hear. Just figure out what position will get you the most votes.
If your going to run on the opposing party, obviously you can't agree with whatever the leader of that party says. Not completely, you got to point out somewhere that they are mistaken.
I usually assume these politicians are the best of friends and politics are just a game they play for our benefit. Whoever is more successful at manipulating public opinion, you get the job.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes. As a kid growing up near Detroit, I would go to Briggs Stadium to see the Tigers play, and yet I could not see the Stroh's bottling plant on some days, which was only a half-mile away. Now I can look down a major street near my home near where I live in the suburbs and see the Renaissance Center that's on the Detroit River almost any day of the week, and that's about 15 miles away.
Global warming is a very different issue from the ones in the cartoon.
We can cut our carbon footprint many fold, but other countries will do what they will.
I place a higher priority on the listed items because they have immediate effect (relatively), & will secondarily mitigate AGW.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
This is true, but we have to start somewhere.
Aye, which is why I'd rather start with measures with tangible primary benefits, eg, energy independence, cleaner air, cleaner water.
Measures with no benefit other than reducing CO2 (eg, some types of energy intensive sequestration) seem a poor use of resources.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I can agree to that. But they all are direct steps to slowing global warming.
Secondary effect.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Gandhi had a take on this that he called "disinterested action", namely that we as individuals need to do that which is right and not wait around for others who may or may not follow suit.
When many things can be done, but one's budget is limited, it makes sense to get the most bang for the buck.
For example, more fuel efficient vehicles will give us more energy independence, cleaner air, & money savings.
Cutting CO2 levels makes this a "twofer".....or a "fourfer".
Investing money here beats the Hell out of underground carbon sequestration.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Or primary. It doesn't matter as both are equally valid.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Sure plenty, they raise taxes, energy prices, and send industry and jobs overseas
Wirey
Fartist
I work in the oil industry, and this statement is nonsense. A large part of my job is to oversee the implementation of programs to lessen the impact of oil extraction on the environment, and everything we use, and all the people we hire, are from Canada and the US. Research "Exxon Korean Modules" in the news and tell me where the oil companies spend your money.
I hope at least you get a buck every time you spew nonsensical propaganda. It would be a shame to give up your integrity for free.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
like I said, money spent on ' environmental programs' rather than producing the energy itself, reduces efficiency and adds to the cost of energy production itself, which hurts competitiveness, hardly a controversial observation regardless of name calling
but personal insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat, so that pretty much wraps this fascinating discussing up, see ya
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think the most tangible benefits would come from concentrating on energy production that is most sustainable and green,
i.e. production that can be sustained at night with no wind.. sustain itself economically- and then some- subsidy free, and as a bonus, even replenish the stuff that actually makes Earth green..
The only problem is, that if we ever found such a miracle energy source just laying around in vast quantities, politicians would either take the industries over or denounce them as evil to skim profits.