Jump to content

Record freezing temps in all 50 states; liberals/global warming advocates: explain


Recommended Posts

 

 

She thinks San Diego is too republican and that NorCal and the rest are a better fit for what she wants for Lyra.

Who seriously makes living decisions based on "too Republican" or not?

 

LOL

 

I do. I could never live in the Midwest.

 

This.

 

As annoying as I find progressives, as delicious as I find their tears, I much prefer living among them than being around a bunch of "too Republican" halfwits!

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Don't insult the greatest documentary of our time.

Chicago isn't so bad. But my family in Nebraska makes me cry, they're so ridiculous. But I can put up with it. They have friends who seriously believe that the Muslims are going to invade and have

Chicago isn't so bad. But my family in Nebraska makes me cry, they're so ridiculous. But I can put up with it. They have friends who seriously believe that the Muslims are going to invade and have a big rig buried on their farm as their holdout shelter. And Obama is actually and truly the anti-Christ.

 

My MIL loves Rush Limbaugh. I can't win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This.

 

As annoying as I find progressives, as delicious as I find their tears, I much prefer living among them than being around a bunch of "too Republican" halfwits!

 

:eek:

I concur. This is the one good thing I like about where I live: Alberta is supposedly Canada's "red state" but we're actually pretty moderate by yankee standards. No whiney PC types except my facebook friend list and hardly any who-would-Jesus-bomb people either. Just the sort of soft libertarianism I like, despite the fact the infrastructure is always in poor repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Bump for all the record snowfall the US has been having and the fact that New England has basically turned into Antarctica.

 

 

Hey! Liberals! I have a challenge for you (which I'm sure no one will take because most of you are too f-cking stupid to argue with me):

 

 

What, precisely, should the US be doing about global warming (or climate change, or insert whatever Orwellian double-speak term that's now in vogue here)?

 

I mean, like an actual policy proposal. Not some hypothetical bullsh-t, like oh gee- if the US only developed this mythical altnerative energy that I just made up right now, but hey, all it needs is a little $$ from the taxpayer, it's just waiting there, like the leprechauns pot-of-gold! No, I want your serious proposal: "The US should do X, and X would end warming." Let's hear it!

 

I'm not going to argue that warming is happening, I'm not even going to argue that humans are causing it. I will concede all that- yes humans are evil bla bla bla, whatever.

 

I want to hear the policy. What is this policy that we need to pass and it's just the oh-so evil GOP/Exxon conspiracy that's preventing it and also eating kittens. China has been the world's largest CO2 emitter for over 10 years now. China emits over 25% more CO2 than the US, and 16% more than the US when considering all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if you say, "Oh but China is so much bigger, look at me I'm smart," well too bad, even per capita the US is not #1, it's Qatar, over twice as much by the way.

 

So I'm very eager to know what the US has to do that it just hasn't been. All ears! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. I'm going to be honest and not even approach your global warming thing. It is just weather and I'm pretty much the most liberal thing left on the site after Tami. I am going to respond to snarky attitude that no one here has to guts to argue with you because we are stupid. We're not. We just don't care to enter into an argument about definitions and word play. Plus thanks to any and all purging attitudes concerning the board in general and frequent posters we've pretty much ran off anyone who would give an argument and are left with a pretty homogenous hive mind mentality. Mostly it's just dried up "Yes, I agree - semantic argument half heartedly given - LIKE LIKE LIKE" given all around.

 

PS. Polar Vortex my ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're around 100" of snowfall on the year, with another 10" forecast for tomorrow, then more on Sunday. We are on track to have the coldest February on record, with the current average temperature for the month sitting at 4.6 degrees; the prior record was 11.3 degrees average temperature. Yesterday or today (I forget which) was the first day to break 32 degrees and have an overnight low in the double digits in quite some time. It had been 18 days since we had touched 32. It had been 24 days since we last had an overnight low in the double digits, all the other days being single digits or colder.

 

fuck winter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this policy that we need to pass and it's just the oh-so evil GOP/Exxon conspiracy that's preventing it and also eating kittens.

Ha ha ha!

 

China has been the world's largest CO2 emitter for over 10 years now. China emits over 25% more CO2 than the US, and 16% more than the US when considering all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if you say, "Oh but China is so much bigger, look at me I'm smart," well too bad, even per capita the US is not #1, it's Qatar, over twice as much by the way.

Well ... that's really the problem, isn't it? For man made Co2 emmisions to be lowered enough that man made global warming to halt or reverse, reforms would be needed everywhere, or at least most of the industrialized world. Any policy the U.S adopts by itself probably wouldn't matter much.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

bump for all the record snowfall the US has been having and the fact that New England has basically turned into Antarctica.

 

This is just due to a wibbly, wobbly jet stream


 

Hey! Liberals! I have a challenge for you (which I'm sure no one will take because most of you are too f-cking stupid to argue with me):

 

I'm not too ****ing stupid to argue with you, I do it all the time!


 

What, precisely, should the US be doing about global warming (or climate change, or insert whatever Orwellian double-speak term that's now in vogue here)?

 

Well, I'm no scientist or climatologist, so my first suggestion would be to listen to their suggestions. And going on my own feelings, I'd like to see governments put in place standards that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and give incentives to companies who go above and beyond to increase efficiency of their products/manufacturing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're around 100" of snowfall on the year, with another 10" forecast for tomorrow, then more on Sunday. We are on track to have the coldest February on record, with the current average temperature for the month sitting at 4.6 degrees; the prior record was 11.3 degrees average temperature. Yesterday or today (I forget which) was the first day to break 32 degrees and have an overnight low in the double digits in quite some time. It had been 18 days since we had touched 32. It had been 24 days since we last had an overnight low in the double digits, all the other days being single digits or colder.

 

**** winter.

Some lady called from Maine the other day to ask when her checks may get there. I told her the Magic 8 Ball is UNSURE. Plus the way this lady writes checks she's planning to go OUT and write them in a store. GOD!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump for all the record snowfall the US has been having and the fact that New England has basically turned into Antarctica.

 

 

Hey! Liberals! I have a challenge for you (which I'm sure no one will take because most of you are too f-cking stupid to argue with me):

 

 

What, precisely, should the US be doing about global warming (or climate change, or insert whatever Orwellian double-speak term that's now in vogue here)?

 

I mean, like an actual policy proposal. Not some hypothetical bullsh-t, like oh gee- if the US only developed this mythical altnerative energy that I just made up right now, but hey, all it needs is a little $$ from the taxpayer, it's just waiting there, like the leprechauns pot-of-gold! No, I want your serious proposal: "The US should do X, and X would end warming." Let's hear it!

 

I'm not going to argue that warming is happening, I'm not even going to argue that humans are causing it. I will concede all that- yes humans are evil bla bla bla, whatever.

 

I want to hear the policy. What is this policy that we need to pass and it's just the oh-so evil GOP/Exxon conspiracy that's preventing it and also eating kittens. China has been the world's largest CO2 emitter for over 10 years now. China emits over 25% more CO2 than the US, and 16% more than the US when considering all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if you say, "Oh but China is so much bigger, look at me I'm smart," well too bad, even per capita the US is not #1, it's Qatar, over twice as much by the way.

 

So I'm very eager to know what the US has to do that it just hasn't been. All ears! :)

Ha! I doubt there is a crazy conspiracy with oil companies. In fact, I believe they are rather transparent in their commitment to make a profit. This transparency is quite refreshing.

 

I do not think there is anything we can do to fix global warming. I think it is used by both parties to get people all riled up to one side or another during presidential elections, but then everyone just forgets about it. But to answer the question, I would like to see an increased commitment from the US government into pure research into energy (both renewable and non-renewable) at the university level.

 

Link

 

Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm no scientist or climatologist, so my first suggestion would be to listen to their suggestions. And going on my own feelings, I'd like to see governments put in place standards that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and give incentives to companies who go above and beyond to increase efficiency of their products/manufacturing.

Well that's the problem. Governments. I didn't ask what governments should do, I asked what the US Government should do. I mean, sure, theoretically warming would end tomorrow if all the world's governments simply banned fossil fuel use.

 

Otherwise, yeah, your solutions are sensible, but to a large degree the US has already done them. Doesn't really matter.

 

 

My post, though I'm sure no one will actually bother answering it (or even think about it), was not intended for trolling reasons. I'm wondering if US leftists actually have a policy in mind that the US should pass and that we are failing to do so. OR- as all the evidence seems to suggest- if US leftists' hand-wringing on this issue has a lot more to do with either a) signaling mechanism/peacocking to potential members of your political tribe for social acceptance reasons, that you're sufficiently cool/hip and liberal (e.g. pro-science, not a jesus freak, etc); or b) a form of masturbatory release to assuage the feelings that we must "do something," regardless of how negligible the effects are, in order to eliminate feelings of bleeding-heart guilt.

 

I suspect almost entirely the latter, but if any liberal would like to chime in and actually point to a feasible policy the US just happens to be failing to pass, by all means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bump for all the record snowfall the US has been having and the fact that New England has basically turned into Antarctica.

 

 

Hey! Liberals! I have a challenge for you (which I'm sure no one will take because most of you are too f-cking stupid to argue with me):

 

 

What, precisely, should the US be doing about global warming (or climate change, or insert whatever Orwellian double-speak term that's now in vogue here)?

 

I mean, like an actual policy proposal. Not some hypothetical bullsh-t, like oh gee- if the US only developed this mythical altnerative energy that I just made up right now, but hey, all it needs is a little $$ from the taxpayer, it's just waiting there, like the leprechauns pot-of-gold! No, I want your serious proposal: "The US should do X, and X would end warming." Let's hear it!

 

I'm not going to argue that warming is happening, I'm not even going to argue that humans are causing it. I will concede all that- yes humans are evil bla bla bla, whatever.

 

I want to hear the policy. What is this policy that we need to pass and it's just the oh-so evil GOP/Exxon conspiracy that's preventing it and also eating kittens. China has been the world's largest CO2 emitter for over 10 years now. China emits over 25% more CO2 than the US, and 16% more than the US when considering all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if you say, "Oh but China is so much bigger, look at me I'm smart," well too bad, even per capita the US is not #1, it's Qatar, over twice as much by the way.

 

So I'm very eager to know what the US has to do that it just hasn't been. All ears! :)

Ha! I doubt there is a crazy conspiracy with oil companies. In fact, I believe they are rather transparent in their commitment to make a profit. This transparency is quite refreshing.

 

I do not think there is anything we can do to fix global warming. I think it is used by both parties to get people all riled up to one side or another during presidential elections, but then everyone just forgets about it. But to answer the question, I would like to see an increased commitment from the US government into pure research into energy (both renewable and non-renewable) at the university level.

 

Link

 

Link

 

Well, I agree with that. Which is my point- support of warming by leftists has more to do with masturbation and/or peacocking than any actual policy proposal that is being supported. No point in beating a dead horse- see my post above to MG.

 

As far as your links- sure, agreed and conceded. But let me be clear here- my point in this thread has never been that R&D money has no benefit or that we are spending too much on it. I'm not one of those Republicans that thinks public R&D funding is a waste of money. Defense R&D alone is responsible for the majority of useful inventions in the 20th century, any retard can tell you that.

 

But Ender, the devil is in the details. Why energy? The budget is a zero sum game- $1 spent on energy is $1 not on something else. I agree with you that R&D is woefully underfunded in the budget now, but the bigger problem is in allocation. Simply increasing the budget wouldn't solve the allocation problem. Let's say you have $10. How much goes to energy? Why energy and not say, cancer research? Reversing the aging process of cells could arguably start us down the road towards human immortality, or something closer to it. Or how about something basic, just establishing a colony on Mars or something?

 

I certainly think energy research has its own inherent benefits, and reducing fossil fuel dependence has its own inherent benefits too (e.g. national security in the Mid-East, etc.) But again, that $1 going there isn't going somewhere else. To me, energy is a problem that's sorta artificially created by politics anyway- we already have a pollution free source, that's right there, ready to use, and can replace every single power station in the US right now- that's not being used widely only because of a bunch of literal retard anti-vaccine style wackos that make up sh-t and people believe it (I'm talking about nuclear power).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Bump for all the record snowfall the US has been having and the fact that New England has basically turned into Antarctica.

 

 

Hey! Liberals! I have a challenge for you (which I'm sure no one will take because most of you are too f-cking stupid to argue with me):

 

 

What, precisely, should the US be doing about global warming (or climate change, or insert whatever Orwellian double-speak term that's now in vogue here)?

 

I mean, like an actual policy proposal. Not some hypothetical bullsh-t, like oh gee- if the US only developed this mythical altnerative energy that I just made up right now, but hey, all it needs is a little $$ from the taxpayer, it's just waiting there, like the leprechauns pot-of-gold! No, I want your serious proposal: "The US should do X, and X would end warming." Let's hear it!

 

I'm not going to argue that warming is happening, I'm not even going to argue that humans are causing it. I will concede all that- yes humans are evil bla bla bla, whatever.

 

I want to hear the policy. What is this policy that we need to pass and it's just the oh-so evil GOP/Exxon conspiracy that's preventing it and also eating kittens. China has been the world's largest CO2 emitter for over 10 years now. China emits over 25% more CO2 than the US, and 16% more than the US when considering all greenhouse gas emissions. Even if you say, "Oh but China is so much bigger, look at me I'm smart," well too bad, even per capita the US is not #1, it's Qatar, over twice as much by the way.

 

So I'm very eager to know what the US has to do that it just hasn't been. All ears! :)

Ha! I doubt there is a crazy conspiracy with oil companies. In fact, I believe they are rather transparent in their commitment to make a profit. This transparency is quite refreshing.

 

I do not think there is anything we can do to fix global warming. I think it is used by both parties to get people all riled up to one side or another during presidential elections, but then everyone just forgets about it. But to answer the question, I would like to see an increased commitment from the US government into pure research into energy (both renewable and non-renewable) at the university level.

 

Link

 

Link

 

Well, I agree with that. Which is my point- support of warming by leftists has more to do with masturbation and/or peacocking than any actual policy proposal that is being supported. No point in beating a dead horse- see my post above to MG.

 

As far as your links- sure, agreed and conceded. But let me be clear here- my point in this thread has never been that R&D money has no benefit or that we are spending too much on it. I'm not one of those Republicans that thinks public R&D funding is a waste of money. Defense R&D alone is responsible for the majority of useful inventions in the 20th century, any retard can tell you that.

 

But Ender, the devil is in the details. Why energy? The budget is a zero sum game- $1 spent on energy is $1 not on something else. I agree with you that R&D is woefully underfunded in the budget now, but the bigger problem is in allocation. Simply increasing the budget wouldn't solve the allocation problem. Let's say you have $10. How much goes to energy? Why energy and not say, cancer research? Reversing the aging process of cells could arguably start us down the road towards human immortality, or something closer to it. Or how about something basic, just establishing a colony on Mars or something?

 

I certainly think energy research has its own inherent benefits, and reducing fossil fuel dependence has its own inherent benefits too (e.g. national security in the Mid-East, etc.) But again, that $1 going there isn't going somewhere else. To me, energy is a problem that's sorta artificially created by politics anyway- we already have a pollution free source, that's right there, ready to use, and can replace every single power station in the US right now- that's not being used widely only because of a bunch of literal retard anti-vaccine style wackos that make up sh-t and people believe it (I'm talking about nuclear power).

 

I agree. I am all for nuclear energy. Energy research is not just being able to create more and cleaner energy from current sources, but also increasing energy efficiency. Why energy research and not cancer? For one, like you said, energy is essential to our national security. Second, energy has always been a key driver of any economy, so I believe energy research will have a high economic ROI (not just of money generated, but also money saved). Finally, and my inner-hippie answer, is that increased energy research will benefit many other areas of our society. For example, cleaner energy will lead to less pollution and thus lower cancer rates or research into energy production/ transfer using superconductors will help us with space travel.

 

I am quite liberal when it comes to social and environmental issues. With that said, I believe the far-left environmentalist movement needs to have a reality check. I live in Denver and frequent Boulder, which is a mecca for the hippie-environmental movement. They drive around in their Prius', wear their hemp clothes, and grow their own carrots. At the same time the majority of Boulder citizens live in huge houses that require tremendous amounts of energy for HVAC and commute 60 miles a day to Denver. The things we can really do to help the environment include living in smaller, well insulated houses; commute less; not be so wasteful, etc...but those things aren't as trendy and fashionable as most of the psuedo-environmentalist BS that is out there. It is hard to feel morally superior about your improved insulation the same way you can about eating your free range chickens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Well, I'm no scientist or climatologist, so my first suggestion would be to listen to their suggestions. And going on my own feelings, I'd like to see governments put in place standards that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and give incentives to companies who go above and beyond to increase efficiency of their products/manufacturing.

Well that's the problem. Governments. I didn't ask what governments should do, I asked what the US Government should do. I mean, sure, theoretically warming would end tomorrow if all the world's governments simply banned fossil fuel use.

 

Otherwise, yeah, your solutions are sensible, but to a large degree the US has already done them. Doesn't really matter.

 

 

My post, though I'm sure no one will actually bother answering it (or even think about it), was not intended for trolling reasons. I'm wondering if US leftists actually have a policy in mind that the US should pass and that we are failing to do so. OR- as all the evidence seems to suggest- if US leftists' hand-wringing on this issue has a lot more to do with either a) signaling mechanism/peacocking to potential members of your political tribe for social acceptance reasons, that you're sufficiently cool/hip and liberal (e.g. pro-science, not a jesus freak, etc); or b) a form of masturbatory release to assuage the feelings that we must "do something," regardless of how negligible the effects are, in order to eliminate feelings of bleeding-heart guilt.

 

I suspect almost entirely the latter, but if any liberal would like to chime in and actually point to a feasible policy the US just happens to be failing to pass, by all means.

 

Kind of an anecdote but I have a friend who recently went to China, back in October. The amount of industry and production going on, and pollution that goes along with it is beyond ridiculous. Seriously, he said it is so bad on some days, the smog hangs around where visibility is so bad, one could barely see across the street. Basically, what that tells me is whatever the US and Euros do regarding pollution, is cancelled out by countries like China and India. I’ve been to Mexico City myself, a little over a decade ago, and it’s not an exaggeration to say people literally drop dead from the pollution there.

 

Until there is a serious and concerted international effort for not just green and renewable energy but combatting pollution, nothing will be resolved. But someone has to be first to do it. That is why it’s important the US continue to take the lead, and really it should be both the Feds and private industry working together to do it. It may not seemingly accomplish much until other nations like China also participate. There is no guarantee they will, but it is a sure thing they won’t if the US doesn’t. And it really doesn't have to be about climate change, true or not. It should be about conserving resources and if for no other reason (even if it is a selfish one) preventing pollution from affecting human health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why energy?

Because without energy, nothing else happens. There's no economic activity without energy. Why spend a $1 on energy R&D over cancer research? Because cancer doesn't turn the lights on.

 

Global energy consumption is growing at 2-3% annually. Our entire civilization used about 17 trillion watts in 2010 alone. Even if per capita consumption were flat, population growth requires increasing energy production. There's only a finite amount of fossil fuels available. They may last another century, or even two, even with projected growth rates, (depending on how much you trust projections of demand and how large the untapped reservoirs really are versus how large they're expected to be), but everything has a limit. We'll hit "peak solar" in about 400 years at current growth rates. That is, if we covered every square millimeter of the planet (land and ocean) with 100% efficient (ha!) "clean" solar panels, we'd reach the point where even that source is insufficient for our demands by the early 25th century. Obviously, paneling over the entire surface of Earth to produce energy is ridiculous. Where would we sail our yachts?

 

In the end, f-ck global warming. The laws of physics will boil us before global warming does. Simple thermodynamics say that every joule of energy used gets turned into a joule of heat, eventually. That heat gets dumped into the atmosphere, eventually. There's no getting around thermodynamics. Even if carbon dioxide weren't being dumped into the atmosphere, even if we were running on 100% carbon-neutral "clean" "green" energy, the laws of thermodynamics will lead to a warming planet. Any energy production technology, "clean" or not, we develop will warm the planet. It's unavoidable.

 

Might as well politicize the law of gravity - liberals can be against it, conservatives for it, and argue about that fruitlessly, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well that's the problem. Governments. I didn't ask what governments should do, I asked what the US Government should do. I mean, sure, theoretically warming would end tomorrow if all the world's governments simply banned fossil fuel use.

Otherwise, yeah, your solutions are sensible, but to a large degree the US has already done them. Doesn't really matter.

Agreed-it's like slowing and spacing out on a freeway when a jam is ahead-it only works if everyone does it-if not, its' a new jam.


 

My post, though I'm sure no one will actually bother answering it (or even think about it), was not intended for trolling reasons. I'm wondering if US leftists actually have a policy in mind that the US should pass and that we are failing to do so. OR- as all the evidence seems to suggest- if US leftists' hand-wringing on this issue has a lot more to do with either a) signaling mechanism/peacocking to potential members of your political tribe for social acceptance reasons, that you're sufficiently cool/hip and liberal (e.g. pro-science, not a jesus freak, etc); or b) a form of masturbatory release to assuage the feelings that we must "do something," regardless of how negligible the effects are, in order to eliminate feelings of bleeding-heart guilt.

 

I'm going to have to be more specific in my ravings regarding how the world should run because I have NO clue when we're talking how to nudge other governments to help in this effort. I'm pretty ignorant about world politics. I also think, on the national political level, it IS just politics.

 

I suspect almost entirely the latter, but if any liberal would like to chime in and actually point to a feasible policy the US just happens to be failing to pass, by all means.

At this time, I got nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tami, that's because you can't legislate global change. Amanda knows that as well, but it makes her feel better to come in here to challenge everybody to provide an answer when she knows damn well that there isn't one. Then she can point out that she already knew that there was no answer to her question and feel superior when someone tries to provide an answer and fails. She gets off on the failure of others. I don't fully understand the logic there, but just like the mean girls who feel prettier by calling out the physical imperfections of others, Amanda feels smarter when she can find the ignorance in others. Sometimes she has to make up fake "problems" to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...