ADVERTISEMENT

For The Christophobes Here

Your argument in response to criticism of the creationist Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee's position regarding global warming is to shift the discussion to late term abortion?

Step up to the mirror Aloha, and see what "moonbat hysterical" looks like.
You beat me to it. Actually, Aloha used to me more moderate 20 years ago. He has changed since. Maybe Obama did it. ;)
 
It's after the economy and before abortion on my list. However, I'd prefer economic growth without harming the environment. I like clean air and water and a nice climate as much as anyone. On the other hand policies that purportedly and very marginally help the environment while harming the economy are not those that I'll favor. For example, opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline does nothing at all to help the environment and prevents at least a temporary benefit to the economy.
Perfectly coherent. I just disagree on how to balance them. I certainly would not want people to starve for the sake of climate, but if we all had to give up our iPhones and sports cars and start growing our own vegetables? I'd have no problem with that. So much of our economy is based on the gathering if unnecessary toys. I could give them up if need be.
 
1. Bankrupting coal.
2. Anti-drilling.

Investing in new tech is fine.
Hating on coal and oil is anti-job, anti-middle class and anti-poor.


This is beyond ridiculous. You're basically saying two things:
  1. We should continue fossil fuel harvesting / refining despite its obviously detrimental effect on the environment.
  2. If new energy technologies are invented, proven, and commercialized, only the rich will operate the technology. The poor are incapable of migrating their skills to the new operator jobs.
Derp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perfectly coherent. I just disagree on how to balance them. I certainly would not want people to starve for the sake of climate, but if we all had to give up our iPhones and sports cars and start growing our own vegetables? I'd have no problem with that. So much of our economy is based on the gathering if unnecessary toys. I could give them up if need be.
I doubt you'd like the results of taking those billions out of the world's economy. Lots of people make their living manufacturing and selling those things. Others make their living manufacturing and selling the parts for those cars and selling the fuel and working at the Jiffy Lubes and the body shops and garages to repair and maintain them. Think about the people developing apps for the phones and all the cellphone infrastructure jobs. You'd put 100s of thousands of people out of work - actually probably millions. However, no worries, you'd have some potatoes and carrots to eat.

I'd like to keep my sports car too.
 
I doubt you'd like the results of taking those billions out of the world's economy. Lots of people make their living manufacturing and selling those things. Others make their living manufacturing and selling the parts for those cars and selling the fuel and working at the Jiffy Lubes and the body shops and garages to repair and maintain them. Think about the people developing apps for the phones and all the cellphone infrastructure jobs. You'd put 100s of thousands of people out of work - actually probably millions. However, no worries, you'd have some potatoes and carrots to eat.

I'd like to keep my sports car too.
People ultimately make a living doing those things so they can pay other people to grow their food for them. I'm not saying I want us all to go Amish, but if we had to, I could live with it.

A much better solution would be to recognize fossil fuels as the bridge technology they are and dedicate ourselves to doing whatever it takes to move to solar power totally and permanently. It might take 100 years, but it's the only way to keep our toys and our Earth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
People ultimately make a living doing those things so they can pay other people to grow their food for them. I'm not saying I want us all to go Amish, but if we had to, I could live with it.

A much better solution would be to recognize fossil fuels as the bridge technology they are and dedicate ourselves to doing whatever it takes to move to solar power totally and permanently. It might take 100 years, but it's the only way to keep our toys and our Earth.
I'm for solar. It's not going to meet our needs now. Maybe some day. Nuclear power could replace most of our fossil fuel powered energy plants now and there's too much opposition among liberals to make it happen. We should be pushing more for that as a near-term bridge to something better.
 
I'm for solar. It's not going to meet our needs now. Maybe some day. Nuclear power could replace most of our fossil fuel powered energy plants now and there's too much opposition among liberals to make it happen. We should be pushing more for that as a near-term bridge to something better.
I don't disagree with this, except to say that unjustified opposition to nuclear power is bipartisan, at least in my experience.
 
This is beyond ridiculous. You're basically saying two things:
  1. We should continue fossil fuel harvesting / refining despite its obviously detrimental effect on the environment.
  2. If new energy technologies are invented, proven, and commercialized, only the rich will operate the technology. The poor are incapable of migrating their skills to the new operator jobs.
Derp.

He asked for specific "green" "policies" with which one might disagree.
I picked two.

I wasn't asked to wrtite a dissertation.:)
 
He asked for specific "green" "policies" with which one might disagree.
I picked two.

I wasn't asked to wrtite a dissertation.:)

Oh those policies you ID'd were definitely specific. To sum up your ID of specific policies, we note that they are "anti-coal" and "anti-gas".

Mesmerizing.
 
ADVERTISEMENT