• 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!

What Climate Change

T

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
I watched that story yesterday. Great introduction into the vile activities of Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue in stifling Departmental research and dismantling a goodly portion of the Department's climate control activities.

Expanding the specific topic of this thread--from it's narrower focus on USDA anti-climate control activities to a larger focus on Trump Administration efforts to make "the Swamp" even more noxious--I note that, as of March 7, 2018, What We Found in Trump’s Drained Swamp: Hundreds of Ex-Lobbyists and D.C. Insiders — ProPublica
  • "When the Trump administration took office early last year, hundreds of staffers from lobbying firms, conservative think tanks and Trump campaign groups began pouring into the very agencies they once lobbied or whose work they once opposed."
  • Here’s what we found: At least 187 Trump political appointees have been federal lobbyists, and despite President Trump’s campaign pledge to “drain the swamp,” many are now overseeing the industries they once lobbied on behalf of. We’ve also discovered ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest. In addition, at least 254 appointees affiliated with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and at least 125 staffers from prominent conservative think tanks are now working in the federal government, many of whom are on teams to repeal Obama-era regulations.

    Drilling down even further, at least 35 Trump political appointees worked for or consulted with groups affiliated with the the billionaire libertarian brothers Charles and David Koch, who also have a network of advocacy groups, nonprofits, private companies and political action committees. At least 25 Trump appointees came from the influential Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank founded in 1973, and at least two came from Heritage Action, its related political nonprofit. Heritage says the Trump administration, in just its first year, has enacted nearly two-thirds of its 334 policy recommendations.

    We also found — for the first time — dozens of special-government employees, or SGEs, who work as paid consultants or experts for federal agencies while keeping their day jobs in the private sector. This rare government gig allows them to legally work for both industry and the Trump administration at the same time. Under the Obama administration, Huma Abedin, the longtime aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, benefited from this policy while simultaneously working at the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a corporate consulting firm, drawing scrutiny from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Government Accountability Office.
 
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
I've been reading into the history of politics and climate/environment. Still searching, but my working theory is that conservatives got on the side against climate change due to the men who built America buying William McKinley the presidency. Since that time, the environment has been largely bipartisan. But when global warming came up and C02 (fossil fuels) as the culprit, conservatives were decidedly against it.
 
Last edited:
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What makes you think the reverse cant be true ? Like alarmists embellishing things past more than they actually are?
 
dianaiad

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
e.r.m. said:
I've been reading into the history of politics and climate/environment. Still searching, but my working theory is that conservatives got on the side against climate change due to the men who built America buying William McKinley the presidency. Since that time, the environment has been largely bipartisan. But when global warming came up and C02 (fossil fuels) as the culprit, conservatives were decidedly against it.
Click to expand...

Here's the deal...at least, what I see happening.

Liberals "The SKY IS FALLING AND THE USA KNOCKED DOWN THE PILLARS!"...that is, the world is going to end in a decade or so, mankind is completely and utterly responsible for global warming (now called 'climate change' because, well, the globe isn't warming as much as claimed) and that the USA, in particular, is the villain. If we don't kill all the cows, stop driving, stop flying and go back to hunter-gatherer methods of living, we are all going to DIE.

Far right wing conservatives: Nothing is happening, everything is fine, all the science that shows climate change is made up and we can mine everything, cut down all the trees, burn any and everything, and it's all good; we don't have to do a single thing. Because there isn't anything wrong.

Those of us who have a synapse or two to rub together:

Yes, there is climate change. If there is one thing that is absolutely consistent about the earth, it is that everything CHANGES. We are still coming out of an ice age, for crying out loud, and the earth has been...unless it IS in the middle of an ice age, generally warmer than it is now, and the sea levels have been higher than they are now. The only difference is...it MIGHT be possible for us to keep the current state a bit longer, because we were too stupid NOT to build our most populous cities on the coasts which will probably be flooded as the climate warms up.

YES, mankind is partially responsible for the accelerated nature of this particular climate change, but the USA has not, it turns out, been doing the damage. China, India, Russia and other nations have...and still do...produce more greenhouse gases per year than WE do in a couple of decades. Nothing WE...in the US...can do now would stop this. Other nations have got to help.

YES, there is a hole in the ozone layer (remember that? Nobody is worried about that any more...), but we figured out what caused it, banned the flourocarbons, and y'know what? It's SHRINKING. Scientists figure that it will be entirely closed, even if we don't do anything else, by the end of the century. Nobody talks about that, because the liberals can't make political hay out of it.

Here's the kicker: EVEN IF WE accede to OAC and all the other idiots around, the climate WILL change. That's what the earth does.

If we accede to the global warming/climate change twits, about 80% of humanity will die off (we can't feed people if we can't grow food, raise cattle, or transport anything) and anybody left will be hunter gatherers.

Now consider this: it was the hunter-gatherers who made the Sahara what it is today. It was the hunter-gatherers/early farmers who clear cut the entire UK, so that every single tree on those islands are descended from human planted trees...and the Amazon is being cut down, not by modern farmers who know how to treat the land, but by slash and burn folks, using very old methods of farming.

The solution here is to get politics out of science and figure out exactly what it is we want....and then figure out how to get there, NOT to use scare tactics to get elected.

There. Rant done.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The anti-science policies of the current administration have been observed long before now. It is an unfortunate abuse of power whose true costs will not be paid by those making the decision. I would have more respect for their agenda if they would accept the science and simply take pride in the fact that they don't give a damn. Instead they sabotage the truth, obfuscate the facts, and pretend nothing is going on. It's deplorable and cowardly.
 
David T

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Economy trumps enviroment regardless..

I meant that as a card game analogy actually.
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
Nowhere Man said:
What makes you think the reverse cant be true ? Like alarmists embellishing things past more than they actually are?
Click to expand...
A lot of science reading. And a fair amount of mental health knowledge (my profession) that helps me understand how humans process information.
 
Last edited:
e.r.m.

e.r.m.

Church of Christ
dianaiad said:
Here's the deal...at least, what I see happening.

Liberals "The SKY IS FALLING AND THE USA KNOCKED DOWN THE PILLARS!"...that is, the world is going to end in a decade or so, mankind is completely and utterly responsible for global warming (now called 'climate change' because, well, the globe isn't warming as much as claimed) and that the USA, in particular, is the villain. If we don't kill all the cows, stop driving, stop flying and go back to hunter-gatherer methods of living, we are all going to DIE.

Far right wing conservatives: Nothing is happening, everything is fine, all the science that shows climate change is made up and we can mine everything, cut down all the trees, burn any and everything, and it's all good; we don't have to do a single thing. Because there isn't anything wrong.

Those of us who have a synapse or two to rub together:

Yes, there is climate change. If there is one thing that is absolutely consistent about the earth, it is that everything CHANGES. We are still coming out of an ice age, for crying out loud, and the earth has been...unless it IS in the middle of an ice age, generally warmer than it is now, and the sea levels have been higher than they are now. The only difference is...it MIGHT be possible for us to keep the current state a bit longer, because we were too stupid NOT to build our most populous cities on the coasts which will probably be flooded as the climate warms up.

YES, mankind is partially responsible for the accelerated nature of this particular climate change, but the USA has not, it turns out, been doing the damage. China, India, Russia and other nations have...and still do...produce more greenhouse gases per year than WE do in a couple of decades. Nothing WE...in the US...can do now would stop this. Other nations have got to help.

YES, there is a hole in the ozone layer (remember that? Nobody is worried about that any more...), but we figured out what caused it, banned the flourocarbons, and y'know what? It's SHRINKING. Scientists figure that it will be entirely closed, even if we don't do anything else, by the end of the century. Nobody talks about that, because the liberals can't make political hay out of it.

Here's the kicker: EVEN IF WE accede to OAC and all the other idiots around, the climate WILL change. That's what the earth does.

If we accede to the global warming/climate change twits, about 80% of humanity will die off (we can't feed people if we can't grow food, raise cattle, or transport anything) and anybody left will be hunter gatherers.

Now consider this: it was the hunter-gatherers who made the Sahara what it is today. It was the hunter-gatherers/early farmers who clear cut the entire UK, so that every single tree on those islands are descended from human planted trees...and the Amazon is being cut down, not by modern farmers who know how to treat the land, but by slash and burn folks, using very old methods of farming.

The solution here is to get politics out of science and figure out exactly what it is we want....and then figure out how to get there, NOT to use scare tactics to get elected.

There. Rant done.
Click to expand...
:D Thank you for the rant.
First I am a conservative. When I speak of conservatives, for obvious reasons, I don't demonize them. I speak from a pragmatic historical perspective. I'm on board with most conservative ideals. Not this one though because I believe the science pointing to "global warming" is not perfect, but overwhelming.
Second, the change from "Global warming" to "Climate change" has been falsely hijacked by conservatives and blamed upon liberals, even though it's conservatives and their PR machine who made the change. The term "Climate change" was originally used to replace the scarier term "Global warming", in order to water down the issue. "Climate change" was more vague and moldable and therefore easier for non-believing politicians to manipulate than the more direct "Global warming".
Now, conservatives have turned it on it's head and have been saying that it's the "liberals" who changed it from global warming to climate change, for whatever reason. No it wasn't.

Third, only when people don't believe in things do they come up with all sorts of obstacles against it. Global warming amelioration does not have to cause catastrophe (I'm not including AOC). Those who accept it are indeed looking to integrate solutions into society and economy. Deniers simply say making any efforts to slow "Global warming" will unavoidably destroy society so ignore it altogether. Cover my eyes, plug my hears, and scream as loud as I can, I won't hear it.

Fourth, politics don't matter. Either the science and the problem with C02 & methane is real or it is not. And if it is, (and I believe it is), we'd better make efforts because otherwise, the changes are beyond what would otherwise occur naturally, and it will not naturally return to cooling.
 
Last edited:
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
There has been no large fanfare associated with this, but the major players in the agriculture industry are not looking at climate change as if it is some sort of fantasy, liberal, socialist political maneuvering. Most of the big corporations in the industry have been spending a lot money researching and developing products specifically aimed at addressing agricultural productivity in a warmer world.
 
PureX

PureX

Veteran Member
Dan From Smithville said:
There has been no large fanfare associated with this, but the major players in the agriculture industry are not looking at climate change as if it is some sort of fantasy, liberal, socialist political maneuvering. Most of the big corporations in the industry have been spending a lot money researching and developing products specifically aimed at addressing agricultural productivity in a warmer world.
Click to expand...
But they aren't spending that money looking for solutions, they are looking for new profit engines that might become available because of the problem.
 
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
PureX said:
But they aren't spending that money looking for solutions, they are looking for new profit engines that might become available because of the problem.
Click to expand...
Not being privy to the mechanisms behind the decisions of all these businesses, I cannot say what all their motivations are, but based on what I do know, solutions with an eye to profitability are a consideration. I suppose if they risk the money, they should be able to reap some gain for that, but I am sure that is an entirely evil idea and must be beaten down even if it is a risk taken by an organic cooperative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top