SO.. BUSH WAS AN IDIOT??

[phacemeltar]

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and used AF One to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90%and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD 's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?


If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent"Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?


If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cin co de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush had authorized a "green" car that has absolutely no protective parts to it and holds only two people, and would be totally destroyed if in a wreck... would you have thought him a total idiot after all these years of trying to make cars protective?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11 and called him a total idiot!

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?


If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?


If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had 44 czars to run the White House and national security, none of them approved by Congress, and some turned out to be income tax evaders and self avowed communists...would you have thought him a total idiot?


If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years which is already putting our grandchildren in debt, would you approve or think he was a total idiot?

If George W. Bush had taken out the missile defense system in favor of a smaller one that does not have proof it will work...would you call him an idiot?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Speak up...I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!

[Daldolma]

If George W. Bush had knocked something down, would it be the towerz?

[radditsu]

2 wars. Billions of dollars. Squandered economic gains and ruined a balanced budget. 8 years of climate change and stem cell research out the window. Cant say words. Ruined the GOP for the last 10 to 12 years.


Guy was an idiot.

[radditsu]

http://manwiththemuckrake.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/bush-mission-accomplished.jpg

[Argh]

http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/08/bush1.o.jpg/a_560x0.jpg

[Lune]

Bush didn't ruin the GOP, he's actually a paragon for the party. Reagan ruined the GOP.

Obama managed to shove healthcare reform down the throats of million of retarded Americans, and in spite of an obstructive, illegitimate legislature. (The current republican house majority actually won 1.4 million less total votes than their democrat counterparts, and currently have like an 8% approval rating. But they are all going to get re-elected due to gerrymandering, campaign finance corruption, and American retardation.)

ACA isn't perfect. In fact it's pretty fucking corrupt and shitty. But it's a meaningful first step forward, which is one step further than Bush took us.

http://i.imgur.com/k5SUkBc.png

[radditsu]

Oh I would love to voice my opinions on the diefication of the worst president I have ever seen.


Reagan was the worst. Bush knocked down the fucking towers

[radditsu]

Also do you think that this NSA spy shit got invented day 1 of Obamer getting into office.


The first day I bet he was saying to the joint chiefs "Guys I bet we can really piss off my internet savy constituency by spying on them while they poop. "

[radditsu]

That shit was a cheney construct if I ever heard of one.


I tell you what right wing. Get over your conservative christian worldview and start to treat humans like things that deserve respect and compassion. I could really get behind a fiscally sound socially progressive party.

[loramin]

Can't we all just agree that both parties are horrible? I don't care about your politics, if you have half a brain you've got to admit that Bush was a moron ... but at the same time you also have to admit that Obama's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's on many (most?) important issues.

Both parties are completely corrupt, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention. Sure one side might be a little better than the other on any given issue, but until we take the money out of politics both are going to represent the interests of the rich and not of America.

Vote 3rd party in 2014!

[Wonkie]

OP is right, Bush was pretty great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-z2D9lo9-8

[Kaym]

Can't we all just agree that both parties are horrible? I don't care about your politics, if you have half a brain you've got to admit that Bush was a moron ... but at the same time you also have to admit that Obama's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's on many (most?) important issues.

Both parties are completely corrupt, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention. Sure one side might be a little better than the other on any given issue, but until we take the money out of politics both are going to represent the interests of the rich and not of America.

Vote 3rd party in 2014!

/thread

[phacemeltar]

That shit was a cheney construct if I ever heard of one.


I tell you what right wing. Get over your conservative christian worldview and start to treat humans like things that deserve respect and compassion. I could really get behind a fiscally sound socially progressive party.

what does religion have to do with anything? liberal nutjobs like you always try to distract from the truth

[loramin]

Back to the OP's list though, I gotta ask: is this really what you care about?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and used AF One to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
Presidents have lives, and they go places. When they do they take AF One; yes it costs money, but the secret service pretty much requires it. Do you really want a president who never leaves the White House except for official business?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90%and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
vs. having the company collapse and be worth nothing? Seems like 10% > 0%.

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD 's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
Really, your judge of a president is what meaningless gifts he gives other heads of state? Really?


If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cin co de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
Really, the president's ability to speak Spanish is how you judge him?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
Again, the president's ability to spell is a big concern for you? Really?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11 and called him a total idiot!
I'm sure Obama told his pilot "go low and scare the fuck out of people" and that it had nothing to do with the advice of his pilot/secret service/etc.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
Really? It matters whether a president uses a teleprompter like every other person on TV or not? Really?

If George W. Bush had taken out the missile defense system in favor of a smaller one that does not have proof it will work...would you call him an idiot?
C'mon: the old system didn't work either :p

I mean, there are lots of really good reasons to dislike Obama: why waste your time caring about his spelling?

[LulzSect]

http://globetribune.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jesus-H-Obama.jpg

[phacemeltar]

Back to the OP's list though, I gotta ask: is this really what you care about?

yes, the intellect stat is quite important to me as a voter. wisdom is an equally important stat as well.

i guess it makes me feel better about myself to see the president publicly demonstrate that he is a human and capable of making mistakes, but i didnt vote for him based on the idea that he would do that. frankly, its embarrassing to be represented by him considering some of his actions.

[Wonkie]

ITT nerds who don't care for black folks

[JayN]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8-hsSicnvbc/Ta4rwfx-T9I/AAAAAAAAAYM/_x2NBzTkdCw/s1600/Zionist+JEWS+need+YOU+for+New+WARS.jpg

[LulzSect]

yes, the intellect stat is quite important to me as a voter. wisdom is an equally important stat as well.

i guess it makes me feel better about myself to see the president publicly demonstrate that he is a human and capable of making mistakes, but i didnt vote for him based on the idea that he would do that. frankly, its embarrassing to be represented by him considering some of his actions.

A guy that can't utilize proper grammar is embarrassed by the president. Oh no!

[loramin]

@JayN
Huh? If you're trying to say "the rich Jews run the government" I agree 100% on the rich part but isn't the Jew part being a little KKK?

[phacemeltar]

A guy that can't utilize proper grammar is embarrassed by the president. Oh no!

i could, just didnt think it to be very important at the time

[Glenzig]

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/popcorn_jon_stewart.gif

[JayN]

THE WARMACHINE OF CONSUMERISM DEMANDS MORE BROWNLIFES AS TRIBUTE!

[Tasslehofp99]

Lol @ anyone who thinks a president has any real power or that hes the one in control


Corporations run America, elect presidents, and dictate federal law and policy.

[Jfertal]

does anyone else i this thread vote?

[Jfertal]

not just presidents, like city county state??

[JayN]

http://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10341748_325440354271536_7541928122006771221_n.jpg

lol

[Tasslehofp99]

I would vote if any of the candidates represented a majority of the country's voters, or if fair campaigning laws were introduced, with each candidate receiving the same amount of funding. All of our elections are, for the most part, fixed and illegitimate. Some people will say if you don't vote then you have nothing to complain about.

Who do you vote for when none of the candidates represent you, the election is rigged from the start (campaign cobtributions lol,) and the parties who are traditionally elected have no interest in leveling the playing fields for future elections?

If a 3rd party candidate was given a fair shake and wasn't painted negatively or as a cook by the main stream media (as so often happens) perhaps people would be more inclined to vote with their brain instead of just doing whatever Mtv, Cnn,Fox, or mommy/daddy tells them is right.

Republicans and democrats are no different, if you think they are then you've been duped just like most voters in America. They represent an older generation's dead or dying political ideals which no longer work in todays modern world.

I would prefer no government at all rather than a tyrannical, corrupt, and broken one. Anyone who knows what this nation stands for should prolly feel similarly. I would say that most people already do feel this way which is why less than half of the eligible voters in this nation take part in elections.

Maybe one day when people realize our politicians are being elected by a noisy and wealthy minority, things will change for the better.



Ps, I'm shocked OP had nothing to say bout Obama negotiating with terrorists (and freeing some of them to "return to the battlefield") in order to free an American "POW" who was allegedly actually a deserter.

[Rheaume]

Guns!

[Tecmos Deception]

I would vote if any of the candidates represented a majority of the country's voters, or if fair campaigning laws were introduced, with each candidate receiving the same amount of funding. All of our elections are, for the most part, fixed and illegitimate. Some people will say if you don't vote then you have nothing to complain about.

Who do you vote for when none of the candidates represent you, the election is rigged from the start (campaign cobtributions lol,) and the parties who are traditionally elected have no interest in leveling the playing fields for future elections?

If a 3rd party candidate was given a fair shake and wasn't painted negatively or as a cook by the main stream media (as so often happens) perhaps people would be more inclined to vote with their brain instead of just doing whatever Mtv, Cnn,Fox, or mommy/daddy tells them is right.

Republicans and democrats are no different, if you think they are then you've been duped just like most voters in America. They represent an older generation's dead or dying political ideals which no longer work in todays modern world.

I would prefer no government at all rather than a tyrannical, corrupt, and broken one. Anyone who knows what this nation stands for should prolly feel similarly. I would say that most people already do feel this way which is why less than half of the eligible voters in this nation take part in elections.

Maybe one day when people realize our politicians are being elected by a noisy and wealthy minority, things will change for the better.



Ps, I'm shocked OP had nothing to say bout Obama negotiating with terrorists (and freeing some of them to "return to the battlefield") in order to free an American "POW" who was allegedly actually a deserter.

I'm with you except for the no government is better than crappy government part. With no government, I would probably have less time to spend playing p99.

[loramin]

Ps, I'm shocked OP had nothing to say bout Obama negotiating with terrorists (and freeing some of them to "return to the battlefield") in order to free an American "POW" who was allegedly actually a deserter.

Ok look we all want the Afghanistan war to end right? It's been 12+ years of fighting in a country where the guy we went in to get (Bin Laden) left like 11 years ago. Well, when wars end, countries exchange POWs; it's part of the whole winding down of hostilities process. So we're doing that now, and it's not some crazy conspiracy, it's a perfectly normal thing for countries to do when they stop fighting each other.

Also, while the dude wandered off base and certainly violated his orders, he'd done it a few times before and had always come back. Now I don't know military law, but if they didn't kick him out those times, it can't be that bad of an offense. I'm not saying he wasn't a dumb fuck; when you're in the military you follow orders. Still, it's not like he went to go fight for the other side or something, so calling him a deserter is a bit off. Plus, America takes care of its own and all that jazz: if a soldier fucks up and then becomes a POW, we still rescue him ... we just court martial his ass afterwards.

Also, there were no "terrorists" freed. I know the word has become synonymous with "anyone we don't like", but that's not its real meaning. Allow me to break it down: Osama bin Laden was a terrorist. Al Quaida is made up of terrorists. The Taliban is a government (a government full of crazy chauvinistic assholes, but a government none the less). That government refused to help us catch terrorists, but members of that government are still politicians, or generals or whatever it is they are; they are not terrorists. Terrorists blow shit up; these guys just pass laws outlawing music and female skin-showing.

So look, I'll be the first guy to pile shit on Obama for everything he's done, but if you're going to hassle him least do it over something that matters like the NSA spying. Swapping POWs (even if one of them left base without permission) as a war ends is not a reason to hate on the guy.

[phacemeltar]

does anyone else i this thread vote?

i voted for obama the second time around

[Tasslehofp99]

I would say you have made a point about the Taliban guys we freed. I don't know shit about them or who they were/why they were detained. I believe I read somewhere that some were convicted of war crimes. Either way though I'm pretty uncomfortable with us releasing 5 "bad guys" in exchange for one soldier who has a history of dereliction of duty. I don't know, this situation seems pretty damn muddy. The Afghan president even criticised the decision to free these guys, maybe they were just political enemies of his? Lol

My main concern is the precedent that has now been set by this "prisoner swap" and the potential danger our soldiers face overseas if enemy combatants know all they have to do to get their buddies out of jail is capture a soldier.

Desertion is usually the word to describe someone who has abandoned their duties/post without permission though, right? Isn't that also exactly what this guy did?

[phacemeltar]

Also, there were no "terrorists" freed.

i know i dont speak for everyone, but my whole issue with this is the whole 5:1 deal. its basically a statement saying that 5 afghans is equal in value to 1 american.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLBSE5kzM7o

[phacemeltar]

whoops.. here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLBSE5kzM7o#t=154

[phacemeltar]

its not possible for that to affect our population in any significant way. no one cares. wait until religious crazies from either side embrace science and build a superbug ala the stand

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/SWCM4x3coG8/hqdefault.jpg

[Messianic]

Most politicians are basically pseudo-sociopaths who are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their own shortsighted political ends.

Be agorist.

[Nuggie]

That shit was a cheney construct if I ever heard of one.


I tell you what right wing. Get over your conservative christian worldview and start to treat humans like things that deserve respect and compassion. I could really get behind a fiscally sound socially progressive party.

I wish more people would realize Libertarians fit this bill.

[Nuggie]

Can't we all just agree that both parties are horrible? I don't care about your politics, if you have half a brain you've got to admit that Bush was a moron ... but at the same time you also have to admit that Obama's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's on many (most?) important issues.

Both parties are completely corrupt, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention. Sure one side might be a little better than the other on any given issue, but until we take the money out of politics both are going to represent the interests of the rich and not of America.

Vote 3rd party in 2014!

I agree with you on most parts.

However, what if they had found WMD in Iraq? Wouldn't he have been hailed as a hero? A savior of... somebody? Probably not the USA(how they going to realistically get it to us?), but somebody.

[Nuggie]

i voted for obama the second time around

If we are admitting sins... I voted for Reid last time... because his opponent(Sharon Angle) was a religious zealot that scared the pants off me. Seriously, listening to her gave me the creeps.

[Fame]

plebs talking about rule lul

[loramin]

My main concern is the precedent that has now been set by this "prisoner swap" and the potential danger our soldiers face overseas if enemy combatants know all they have to do to get their buddies out of jail is capture a soldier.

Actually a Taliban commander even said ...

Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughs. “Definitely,” he says. “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

But it's not like the Taliban was sitting around thinking "Gee, we could kidnap some American soldiers, but what's the point? Oh wait, we can get five guys back? NOW it's time to do some kidnapping!" They were plenty motivated before too, but it takes more than just motivation to kidnap a soldier.

And even if this did encourage kidnapping, would you rather everyone think "the US will do whatever it takes to get its people back" or would you rather they think "an American is only worth one enemy: if the enemy won't trade 1:1 then the captured guy is shit out of luck."

[phacemeltar]

And even if this did encourage kidnapping, would you rather everyone think "the US will do whatever it takes to get its people back" or would you rather they think "an American is only worth one enemy: if the enemy won't trade 1:1 then the captured guy is shit out of luck."

i would rather the enemy think "the US wont be manipulated into unfair trade agreements, the citizens wouldnt stand for it"

[Cecily]

most useless thread 2014

[Misto]

2 wars. Billions of dollars. Squandered economic gains and ruined a balanced budget. 8 years of climate change and stem cell research out the window. Cant say words. Ruined the GOP for the last 10 to 12 years.


Guy was an idiot.

America was going to war regardless of whose administration was in the White House.

Everyone in Congress voted for it.

[Misto]

That shit was a cheney construct if I ever heard of one.


I tell you what right wing. Get over your conservative christian worldview and start to treat humans like things that deserve respect and compassion. I could really get behind a fiscally sound socially progressive party.

You sound like an idiot.

Human beings are dumb animals and do not deserve respect and compassion. That is earned.

Everyone is just lucky there are smart people like Tesla to invent shit.

[myriverse]

remember when we didnt negotiate with terrorists (besides in secret)?
Yeah, I remember it never getting us fucking anywhere.

[radditsu]

I wish more people would realize Libertarians fit this bill.

Yup my wife is a libertarian.


They have a few too many nutjobs in the upper echelons for me to go that route.

[LulzSect]

there is no actual proof he was a deserter

conjecture

[Gaffin 7.0]

http://i62.tinypic.com/29gkk6r.gif

[LulzSect]

Naez read about it on the internet. It must be true.

[LulzSect]

The New York Times has never lied about anything. Ever.

[Gaffin 7.0]

http://i61.tinypic.com/33elxxc.gif

[Nuggie]

Yup my wife is a libertarian.


They have a few too many nutjobs in the upper echelons for me to go that route.

Who in the upper echelons of any party isn't a little scary when thinking about them in power? Rand Paul wanted us to go back to a US isolationist standpoint.

I'd be a libertarian if they didn't require that stupid pledge about not rising up in force or whatever it was.

[DeruIsLove]

I'm sad that the wolfpac doesn't stand a chance.

[Pringles]

I maintain that Obama isn't qualified to run a company, let alone a country. The guy would be fired as CEO of any company within 6 months. Blaming the previous CEO for current failures is unacceptable. The dudes flat out incompetent. He's also always claiming ignorance on not being informed of important issues (after he puts his foot in his mouth), ignoring the Constitution, ignoring Congress.... the list goes on.

I wasn't a big fan of the previous administration either.... but Obama is worse.

[DeruIsLove]

I maintain that Obama isn't qualified to run a company, let alone a country. The guy would be fired as CEO of any company within 6 months. Blaming the previous CEO for current failures is unacceptable. The dudes flat out incompetent. He's also always claiming ignorance on not being informed of important issues (after he puts his foot in his mouth), ignoring the Constitution, ignoring Congress.... the list goes on.

I wasn't a big fan of the previous administration either.... but Obama is worse.

Directly comparing running the country to running a company. You and your corporate/money mindset are part of the problem.

[Faron]

Directly comparing running the country to running a company. You and your corporate/money mindset are part of the problem.

stop pretending that you are some kind of political action hero. you live in a basement and play elf sim 24 7

[DeruIsLove]

stop pretending that you are some kind of political action hero. you live in a basement and play elf sim 24 7

Sorry, I find myself struggling to care about your post due to its overwhelming lack of content.

[Faron]

Oh yeah, well I don't care even more than you don't care. YOUR MOVE TUFF STUFF

[DeruIsLove]

Nah. I consider such an outcome favorable. End.

[Lune]

I'd be a libertarian if they didn't require that stupid pledge about not rising up in force or whatever it was.

Not wanting to have a half trillion dollar war machine running during peacetime is something I actually understand about libertarians.

What about the complete disregard for the environment? Libertarians often have the audacity to say that under an unfettered free market, market forces and tort law will control pollution, contamination, excessive emissions, etc. Living in a coalsmoke saturated atmosphere reduces life expectancy by years, and yet we get corporate-funded deviousness like "clean coal" and "coal=jobs". It's really entertaining listening to the bullshit libertarians and far-right conservatives come up with in an attempt to make environmental policy that seems convincing.

http://i.imgur.com/DuBnMzV.png

[Pringles]

Directly comparing running the country to running a company. You and your corporate/money mindset are part of the problem.

Please explain how its different, its a business with a side of politics.

[Pringles]

*Extra side of politics.

[DeruIsLove]

Please explain how its different, its a business with a side of politics.

I don't need to, Harvard business review did it quite nicely already... in 1996.

Do your own research

[radditsu]

http://media2.giphy.com/media/p0MRx3MvARwpW/giphy.gif

http://cdn01.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/14/jennifer-lawrence-10.gif

[Ahldagor]

I don't need to, Harvard business review did it quite nicely already... in 1996.

Do your own research

way to engage there third grader who can't see the forest from the trees

[loramin]

Scientists work off grants where theyre pressured to find bullshit about co2, so Al Gore can get rich off selling carbon credits for everytime we exhale. Of course we don't trust them.

C'mon, really? I actually have a PhD friend who's doing her research on why people don't believe in climate research (even though they'll happily go to the doctor and trust all the research that went in to treating their cancer, or walk in to a building trusting all the seismological research that went in to its construction, or ...). The people doing this research are doing it either out of pure scientific curiosity or because they're concerned about the end of the world (or both), not because they somehow have a financial interest in it. Trust me, climate researchers (hell ANY academic researchers) do not make bank.

I mean, let's break your idea down: first off, Al Gore doesn't "get rich" selling carbon credits, the US government does (and rich is a relative term here; carbon credits are not a significant source of the budget). Al Gore gets book deals, but lots of vice presidents (and even lower people on the totem pole) get those without talking about global warming. Second, even if Al Gore was somehow magically making millions off carbon credits, how exactly would he secretly channel all that money to the thousands of different researchers at hundreds of different institutions all over the world, without anyone knowing? That'd take some serious Illuminati shit.

In short, if you don't believe in global warming it could be for a lot of reasons (if you're actually curious, which I doubt, I could get the list from her), but it's not because there actually is an international conspiracy of evil scientists trying to enhance Al Gore's bank account.

[Tiggles]

C'mon, really? I actually have a PhD friend who's doing her research on why people don't believe in climate research (even though they'll happily go to the doctor and trust all the research that went in to treating their cancer, or walk in to a building trusting all the seismological research that went in to its construction, or ...). The people doing this research are doing it either out of pure scientific curiosity or because they're concerned about the end of the world (or both), not because they somehow have a financial interest in it. Trust me, climate researchers (hell ANY academic researchers) do not make bank.

I mean, let's break your idea down: first off, Al Gore doesn't "get rich" selling carbon credits, the US government does (and rich is a relative term here; carbon credits are not a significant source of the budget). Al Gore gets book deals, but lots of vice presidents (and even lower people on the totem pole) get those without talking about global warming. Second, even if Al Gore was somehow magically making millions off carbon credits, how exactly would he secretly channel all that money to the thousands of different researchers at hundreds of different institutions all over the world, without anyone knowing? That'd take some serious Illuminati shit.

In short, if you don't believe in global warming it could be for a lot of reasons (if you're actually curious, which I doubt, I could get the list from her), but it's not because there actually is an international conspiracy of evil scientists trying to enhance Al Gore's bank account.


I did not read your post and I do believe in climate change but Al gore DOES get rich selling the "idea" of carbon credits he is also an investor in the company that provides these credits.

Al gore is a fraud.

[Faron]

It's not that people don't believe in climate change, it's that they don't believe in the politicized side of it - that humans have any significant impact on it.

[loramin]

I did not read your post and I do believe in climate change but Al gore DOES get rich selling the "idea" of carbon credits he is also an investor in the company that provides these credits.

Al gore is a fraud.

I thought the government provided the credits? But I did google Gore it and it does look like he has invested a lot in climate change-related companies, like a smart grid company called Silver Spring Networks, that benefit from climate change laws. You could take that as "he cares a lot about this climate change stuff so he's investing in companies fighting it", or you could see it as "he's creating a need then investing in companies that fill that need", but at worst he's doing something the military industrial complex companies do all the time and no one is jumping on them.

It's not that people don't believe in climate change, it's that they don't believe in the politicized side of it - that humans have any significant impact on it.

The idea that humans have a significant impact isn't political. Well I mean, of course it is, but it's agreed on by the overwhelming consensus (like 95%) of climate scientists, so it's not about what Al Gore believes or what Rush Limbaugh believes or whatever: the people that study and really know about this stuff all agree on it.

The political part comes from companies owning oil and gas resources doing the math and figuring "if we spend $5 million making it look like there's an argument even though there isn't, it can save us from $20 million in regulations." The tobacco companies did the same thing for years trying to make it seem like there was no consensus on cigarettes causing lung cancer, and while eventually they got regulated they did succeed in delaying regulation for a long time.

[toosweet]

Both sides lie to you and jam it in your asses.
Wake the fuck up!!!

[Ahldagor]

climate change is real. so why not reduce the influence on it that humans have? the end game of the process is an atmosphere like mars or venus.

[Glenzig]

Has the environment been adversely affected by greedy corporations since the dawn of the industrial age? Absolutely!
Does that mean that global warming is a real and present danger? Absolutely not!
Its widely known that the data behind global warming is sketchy at best, an outright lie at worst. Anyone who has their ear to the wall so to speak knows this. Doesn't take too much intelligence to realize that people like Al Gore are just shills for a bigger agenda.


We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster, or for dramatic social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our Appropriate Technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt-free at last.

– Stewart Brand, 1980 (quoted in: Rodes and Odell, A Dictionary of Environmental Quotations, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997, p. 90)


Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.

– Paul Watson (founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society), May 04, 2007


We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth…Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

– David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989 (in Rodes and Odell, op. cit., p. 149)


[T]he hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us. …When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory…

– The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement


Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”

– Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 115

[Lune]

Have you heard about the Lemurians that live below Mt. Shasta? I bet they are wrapped up in all this too.

[loramin]

Does that mean that global warming is a real and present danger? Absolutely not!
Its widely known that the data behind global warming is sketchy at best, an outright lie at worst. Anyone who has their ear to the wall so to speak knows this. Doesn't take too much intelligence to realize that people like Al Gore are just shills for a bigger agenda.


Widely known by who? Like I said, among actual scientists who actually study this stuff, the exact opposite is true: it is widely known that there is very strong evidence that global warming is real, serious, and man made.

If you want a hidden agenda, look at who actually stands to lose from global warming laws, and look at how much money they've put in to making you believe that it's "widely known" we shouldn't make laws against them.

[Glenzig]

Well here's one example. There are plenty of others out there too. The consensus is not as clear cut as people would like it to be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html

[DeruIsLove]

There are plenty of others out there too.[/url]

Put up.

[Dragonsblood1987]

If George W. Bush had knocked something down, would it be the towerz?
It wasn't bush, it was the CIA.

[Glenzig]

Put up.

As you always say, I'm not going to hold your hand. The info is out there. Do your own research.

[Wudan]

dude... the fact is ALL american presidents suck huge cock. They are all puppets and they are all IDIOTS so please stop comparing. You are wasting your time.

...just another victim of the false left-right paradime.

YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CHOICE IDIOT!

[Alenon]

Widely known by who? Like I said, among actual scientists who actually study this stuff, the exact opposite is true: it is widely known that there is very strong evidence that global warming is real, serious, and man made.

If you want a hidden agenda, look at who actually stands to lose from global warming laws, and look at how much money they've put in to making you believe that it's "widely known" we shouldn't make laws against them.

I have a master's in atmospheric science and did a study of this at und. Global warming and cooling has been going on millions of years and doesn't need mankind to initiate it. It has always happened and will continue to do so without us. It goes up and down like a wavelength just as our seasons changeange. It's impossible to know, with current observed climo data, that mankind is singlehandedly destroying the earth. At least by global warming. But that's just my conclusions.

[myriverse]

Well here's one example. There are plenty of others out there too. The consensus is not as clear cut as people would like it to be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html
Dailymail is not a valid news source.

Or info source for anything.

[phacemeltar]

I have a master's in atmospheric science and did a study of this at und. Global warming and cooling has been going on millions of years and doesn't need mankind to initiate it. It has always happened and will continue to do so without us. It goes up and down like a wavelength just as our seasons changeange. It's impossible to know, with current observed climo data, that mankind is singlehandedly destroying the earth. At least by global warming. But that's just my conclusions.

possibly relevant, but either way i like the pictures: http://kottke.org/10/07/what-if-the-earth-stopped-spinning

[Glenzig]

Dailymail is not a valid news source.

Or info source for anything.

Well if you can't despite the info attack the source right?

[Glenzig]

Dispute.*

[Archalen]

Have you seen his paintings? I am pretty sure he is entering the early stages of senility.

[loramin]

Well if you can't despite the info attack the source right?

More like "if no credible source will tell you what you want, go find the lone crackpot supports your view".

The Daily Mail is not exactly known for being an unbiased quality paper ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

But hey, if you want to base your entire world view on a single shady paper, instead of believing the 95% of PhDs who spend their lives studying climate science ...

As you always say, I'm not going to hold your hand. The info is out there. Do your own research.

[Glenzig]

More like "if no credible source will tell you what you want, go find the lone crackpot supports your view".

The Daily Mail is not exactly known for being an unbiased quality paper ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

But hey, if you want to base your entire world view on a single shady paper, instead of believing the 95% of PhDs who spend their lives studying climate science ...

Yup. That's the only person saying that too. There's no such thing as Climategate.

[Glenzig]

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

[Glenzig]

possibly relevant, but either way i like the pictures: http://kottke.org/10/07/what-if-the-earth-stopped-spinning

How can we stop this global slowing epidemic?

[loramin]

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lu-2013-cfcs.html

[loramin]

BTW, do you guys believe cigarette smoke is caused by cancer? Because you wouldn't have back in the day when the cigarette companies doing the same thing the oil and gas companies are doing now.

[phacemeltar]

fracking is good, y'hear?

[Glenzig]

Yeah I read that one too. Dr. Lu's findings seem to make much more sense though. I mean CFC's are not naturally occurring, so you would assume that they would be much more damaging than C02, which is completely natural. But obviously since someone whose job it is to "debunk" findings like his has a counterargument, then I guess we'll just have to dismiss it completely.

[Glenzig]

BTW, do you guys believe cigarette smoke is caused by cancer? Because you wouldn't have back in the day when the cigarette companies doing the same thing the oil and gas companies are doing now.

No I 100% believe that cigarette smoke is caused by cigarettes.

[loramin]

No I 100% believe that cigarette smoke is caused by cigarettes.

20 years ago there was clear evidence that lung cancer and smoking were linked, just as there is clear evidence that global warming is man-made now. Yet back then there were also screwball scientists saying there was no link, and the tobacco industry did everything they could support those scientists and hide the link between cigarettes and cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600597/). Try and look at the mistakes people made back then and connect them to what's happening now.

Yeah I read that one too. Dr. Lu's findings seem to make much more sense though. I mean CFC's are not naturally occurring, so you would assume that they would be much more damaging than C02, which is completely natural. But obviously since someone whose job it is to "debunk" findings like his has a counterargument, then I guess we'll just have to dismiss it completely.

"Seemed to make much more sense". Forgive me if I think we should take the word of thousands of people who devote their lives to the study of climate and not the one scientist who "makes sense" to you.

If you want to talk about "what makes sense", I say trust the scientific community. You do that with everything else right? When you go to the hospital you trust the research behind your treatment, you don't say "well there's this one dude in Glasgow who believes infection is caused by lack of exposure to ducks; fuck your antibiotics I'm gonna go rub some ducks on this wound!" When you build a building you don't say "fuck those seismic engineers, I'm using a single pillar to support my building; there's a guy in Mexico who says it will work!"

Just because the duck growers society pays for a study saying ducks work as antibiotics doesn't mean you should start rubbing ducks on your wounds. And just because a few lone scientists want to get money and or fame by claiming something crazy doesn't mean you should listen to them instead of the thousands of other people who are really experts and who don't have oil and gas companies buying their word.

[Swifty]

Merica

http://www.euroman.dk/Upload/euroman-dk/blogs/kristoffer/2014/juni/4/wwprty.gif

[Glenzig]

20 years ago there was clear evidence that lung cancer and smoking were linked, just as there is clear evidence that global warming is man-made now. Yet back then there were also screwball scientists saying there was no link, and the tobacco industry did everything they could support those scientists and hide the link between cigarettes and cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2600597/). Try and look at the mistakes people made back then and connect them to what's happening now.



"Seemed to make much more sense". Forgive me if I think we should take the word of thousands of people who devote their lives to the study of climate and not the one scientist who "makes sense" to you.

If you want to talk about "what makes sense", I say trust the scientific community. You do that with everything else right? When you go to the hospital you trust the research behind your treatment, you don't say "well there's this one dude in Glasgow who believes infection is caused by lack of exposure to ducks; fuck your antibiotics I'm gonna go rub some ducks on this wound!" When you build a building you don't say "fuck those seismic engineers, I'm using a single pillar to support my building; there's a guy in Mexico who says it will work!"

Just because the duck growers society pays for a study saying ducks work as antibiotics doesn't mean you should start rubbing ducks on your wounds. And just because a few lone scientists want to get money and or fame by claiming something crazy doesn't mean you should listen to them instead of the thousands of other people who are really experts and who don't have oil and gas companies buying their word.

Well it was peer reviewed. And I do believe he is actually a scientist. I'm not sure why you're comparing cigarettes to global warming, but really this evidence would put more onus on the industries than it would on anyone else. I mean I don't remember ever manufacturing CFC's in my back yard. The blame shift of the C02 theory is why it continues to gain acceptance despite valid counter evidence. I mean when you can tell someone that grilling a steak, or burning some brush in your back yard is contributing to climate change, and at the same time ignore the massive amount of damage that mass produced chemicals are having, there would seem to be some bias on the part of the C02 global warming theorists. That and the fact that their concrete evidence that they had 5 years ago about what the median temperature of the earth would be, and the state of the ice caps has turned out to be completely false, might just make a logical person think that at least a good chunk of that data was garbage.

[Glenzig]

Oh and there is this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1

[radditsu]

You guys are the worst. REDDIT has better discourse than this.



U dum nigs.

[loramin]

Oh and there is this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html?m=1

My mistake; I Googled your story and picked the first reasonable-looking site (bad choice :()

Well it was peer reviewed. And I do believe he is actually a scientist.
Peer review (sadly) means squat nowadays. And I believe he is too, but when you have a hundred scientists saying one thing and one scientist saying something different ...

I'm not sure why you're comparing cigarettes to global warming
Both are cases where the scientific community has a clear consensus, but industry has spent tons of money confusing the issue, so to an outside observer like yourself there appears to be a controversy when there isn't.

but really this evidence would put more onus on the industries than it would on anyone else. I mean I don't remember ever manufacturing CFC's in my back yard. The blame shift of the C02 theory is why it continues to gain acceptance despite valid counter evidence. I mean when you can tell someone that grilling a steak, or burning some brush in your back yard is contributing to climate change, and at the same time ignore the massive amount of damage that mass produced chemicals are having, there would seem to be some bias on the part of the C02 global warming theorists. That and the fact that their concrete evidence that they had 5 years ago about what the median temperature of the earth would be, and the state of the ice caps has turned out to be completely false, might just make a logical person think that at least a good chunk of that data was garbage.

Look, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, and I don't think I'm going to convince you by citing global warming research. When you've already fortified your mind against all evidence to the contrary, more evidence won't help. All I can say is, look at peoples' motivations.

The scientists are motivated to find the truth and make you believe the truth; that's just the kind of people they are (you don't study climate science for the babes). In contrast the coal and oil industry stands to literally save billions if they can just delay regulation a few years more. So you can either follow the money and the conflict of interest, or you can buy what the coal industry is selling.

[Glenzig]

My mistake; I Googled your story and picked the first reasonable-looking site (bad choice :()


Peer review (sadly) means squat nowadays. And I believe he is too, but when you have a hundred scientists saying one thing and one scientist saying something different ...


Both are cases where the scientific community has a clear consensus, but industry has spent tons of money confusing the issue, so to an outside observer like yourself there appears to be a controversy when there isn't.



Look, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, and I don't think I'm going to convince you by citing global warming research. When you've already fortified your mind against all evidence to the contrary, more evidence won't help. All I can say is, look at peoples' motivations.

The scientists are motivated to find the truth and make you believe the truth; that's just the kind of people they are (you don't study climate science for the babes). In contrast the coal and oil industry stands to literally save billions if they can just delay regulation a few years more. So you can either follow the money and the conflict of interest, or you can buy what the coal industry is selling.

I never said that there wasnt an agenda behind it. Im sure the energy industries are just as tied in as anyone else. What I'm saying is that there has been a strong deflection of guilt toward regular joe's as the "consumer" as opposed to placing the blame squarely where it lies, industry. Whether you view that as Coal, Nuclear, Oil, whatever, thats not the point. The point is that the majority blame has been shifted towards regular every day people buying products from a store, or not using the correct mercury laden lightbulbs, instead of looking to the manufacturers of said products as the culprit. I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.
If you take C02 out of the scenario all of the consumer blaming goes by the wayside. Because consumers cant produce the complex chemicals that are actually responsible for the adverse impact on the environment. If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

[Glenzig]

I do agree with you about peer review not mean ing a whole lot anymore though. Ive been noticing that for a long time now. I just know that I have been told several times that peer review=scientific fact. So that was a bit disingenuous on my part. Sorry.

[DeruIsLove]

I never said that there wasnt an agenda behind it. Im sure the energy industries are just as tied in as anyone else. What I'm saying is that there has been a strong deflection of guilt toward regular joe's as the "consumer" as opposed to placing the blame squarely where it lies, industry. Whether you view that as Coal, Nuclear, Oil, whatever, thats not the point. The point is that the majority blame has been shifted towards regular every day people buying products from a store, or not using the correct mercury laden lightbulbs, instead of looking to the manufacturers of said products as the culprit. I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.
If you take C02 out of the scenario all of the consumer blaming goes by the wayside. Because consumers cant produce the complex chemicals that are actually responsible for the adverse impact on the environment. If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

I see what you are trying to say, I believe you are looking at it from the wrong angle though.

It's not as much 'guilt tripping the consumer' as it's explaining that the consumer (by the very nature of purchasing the same destructive products over and over again) is what keeps the source of the problem (industry) going.

Money talks. If you can convince consumers to spend their money on more ecologically safe products, the industry will adapt and sell ecologically safe products to meet the demands. Look at aerosol products as a precedence to this.

[loramin]

I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.
Ummmm ... I don't think they want a carbon tax, it would hurt their bottom line no?

If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

You mean this?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depopulation_conspiracy_theory

That page explains quite well why I don't buy in.

[mtb tripper]

Can't we all just agree that both parties are horrible? I don't care about your politics, if you have half a brain you've got to admit that Bush was a moron ... but at the same time you also have to admit that Obama's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's on many (most?) important issues.

Both parties are completely corrupt, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention. Sure one side might be a little better than the other on any given issue, but until we take the money out of politics both are going to represent the interests of the rich and not of America.

Vote 3rd party in 2014!

[Glenzig]

I see what you are trying to say, I believe you are looking at it from the wrong angle though.

It's not as much 'guilt tripping the consumer' as it's explaining that the consumer (by the very nature of purchasing the same destructive products over and over again) is what keeps the source of the problem (industry) going.

Money talks. If you can convince consumers to spend their money on more ecologically safe products, the industry will adapt and sell ecologically safe products to meet the demands. Look at aerosol products as a precedence to this.

And all you have to do is fork over 3x the money. You see the irony in this right? If a product is known to be harmful to the environment by its production methods, then the production methods or the product should be removed outright. This eliminates the middle man completely. I have no idea how every single product I buy is produced, but the companies that produce them do. Saying that the industry that produces said product shouldn't have to care about the environmental safety of the production methods until it affect their bottom line is just more guilt tripping and blame laying on the buyer of the products who are more than likely ignorant of the impact of said product rather than blaming the producer of said product who is very well aware of the impact. This isnt a solution to anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem since the buyer will always be pushed toward the less expensive product simply by advertising alone.
Aerosol products are still being produced BTW. So simply proving that something is harmful will never in itself remove the production of said product.

[Glenzig]

Ummmm ... I don't think they want a carbon tax, it would hurt their bottom line no?



You mean this?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depopulation_conspiracy_theory

That page explains quite well why I don't buy in.

Look into how the carbon tax would actually work. They will get tremendous kickbacks to offset any increased operating costs and at the same time increase rates to cover the increase of operating costs. Its a win win for them. doesnt slow down production, doesnt change production methods, it only raises rates.

[DeruIsLove]

And all you have to do is fork over 3x the money. You see the irony in this right? If a product is known to be harmful to the environment by its production methods, then the production methods or the product should be removed outright. This eliminates the middle man completely. I have no idea how every single product I buy is produced, but the companies that produce them do. Saying that the industry that produces said product shouldn't have to care about the environmental safety of the production methods until it affect their bottom line is just more guilt tripping and blame laying on the buyer of the products who are more than likely ignorant of the impact of said product rather than blaming the producer of said product who is very well aware of the impact. This isnt a solution to anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem since the buyer will always be pushed toward the less expensive product simply by advertising alone.
That's an issue with lobbyists though and is besides the point.

Aerosol products are still being produced BTW. So simply proving that something is harmful will never in itself remove the production of said product.
Look into how modern (anything produced since the mid 1990's) aerosol is produced. They banned ozone depleting substances then and the earth has since repaired virtually all of the measurable damage.

[Lictor]

You guys realize global warming is a complete joke right? It is all big corporation/big money pumping dollars into a political party to keep the ignorant public persuaded either to the left or to the right. There is plenty of scientific data on both sides of the argument showing both sides fabricate statistics to sway voters to one side or the other, thus increases both sides pocket books.

[Emsee]

You at this point should be bitch slapped if you believe Global Warming is a farce. Watch less Faux news, scumbags.

[loramin]

um, not to get into semantics but the amount of evidence against global warming is so great they changed the term to climate change

No, they changed it to "climate change" because that's the more scientifically accurate term: global warming makes it sound like the weather just gets warmer, but because of how the climate works it actually gets cooler/dryer/wetter/etc. in different areas, not just warmer.

[loramin]

There is plenty of scientific data on both sides of the argument showing both sides fabricate statistics to sway voters to one side or the other, thus increases both sides pocket books.

See, you are buying in to what the oil and gas companies want. There is overwhelming evidence FOR climate change/global warming, and then there are a few screwballs on the edge who are paid for by big oil and gas. Those screwballs make it look like there is "plenty of scientific data on both sides", and to a non-climate scientist like you or I it certainly seems that way. But if you look at the surveys, 95% of climate scientists, the people that have devoted their lives to studying this stuff, believe climate change is both real and man-made:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

[Faron]

You at this point should be bitch slapped if you believe Global Warming is a farce. Watch less Faux news, scumbags.

Haha I get it. It's spelled kinda like Fox, but the word means fake in another language. Wit! I get my news from the objective level heads as CNN and MSNBC. They call it right down the middle.

global warming makes it sound like the weather just gets warmer

But that was exactly the argument all through the 80s and 90s. The entire point of this issue is to create more regulation, i.e. bigger government, more taxes, and have people pay more for energy, all under the guise of the feel-good issue that the plebs will swallow whole: that we're saving the environment. It's pretty annoying.

[loramin]

The entire point of this issue is to create more regulation, i.e. bigger government, more taxes, and have people pay more for energy, all under the guise of the feel-good issue that the plebs will swallow whole: that we're saving the environment. It's pretty annoying.

Ok, let me get this straight: you think there's a bunch of people in government that just want more government, and those people have somehow secretly convinced 95% of the climate scientists on the planet to say that climate change is real when it isn't ... all just so that we can have more taxes.

Yeah, it could be that ... or maybe, just maybe, the people who study the climate see that the earth is getting fucked up and they want to do something to prevent it. I think my version makes a bit more sense, personally.

[loramin]

P.S. Your signature is almost hypnotic when you have the right music playing in the background.

[Glenzig]

Ok, let me get this straight: you think there's a bunch of people in government that just want more government, and those people have somehow secretly convinced 95% of the climate scientists on the planet to say that climate change is real when it isn't ... all just so that we can have more taxes.

"The struggle against poverty in the world and the challenge of cutting wealthy country emissions, all has a single, very simple solution. … Here it is: Put a price on carbon.” — Al Gore

[Glenzig]

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
Quoting: United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment



A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.
Quoting: Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor



… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.
Quoting: Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind



One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it.
Quoting: Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier



If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
Quoting: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund



I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
Quoting: John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal



The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
Quoting: Christopher Manes, Earth First!



Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
Quoting: David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club



In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
Quoting: Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

[Deldanko]

how does charging for Carbon cure poverty?

[Deldanko]

I bet you guys could run the country better.

[Lune]

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
Quoting: United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.
Quoting: Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.
Quoting: Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it.
Quoting: Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
Quoting: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
Quoting: John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
Quoting: Christopher Manes, Earth First!

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
Quoting: David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
Quoting: Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

http://i.imgur.com/ZFDdv10.jpg

[Glenzig]

http://i.imgur.com/ZFDdv10.jpg

Heheh. Nice.

[Glenzig]

how does charging for Carbon cure poverty?

Good question. Al Gore isn't exactly known for being reasonable though.

[Deldanko]

not the slightest.

[Faron]

Ok, let me get this straight: you think there's a bunch of people in government that just want more government

You just described the entire purpose and goal of the democratic party, so yes.

[loramin]

You just described the entire purpose and goal of the democratic party, so yes.

No, it's not. The purpose and goal of the Democrats, like the Republicans, is to serve their corporate financiers.

But more importantly ...

Ok, let me get this straight: you think there's a bunch of people in government that just want more government, and those people have somehow secretly convinced 95% of the climate scientists on the planet to say that climate change is real when it isn't ... all just so that we can have more taxes

Even if it was somehow true that our half our government was filled with people who simply want to add more government for no reason other than to add more government, you still haven't explained how the Democrats somehow secretly convinced 95% of climatologists to lie.

[loramin]

You basically just agreed with me.

No. Saying "it gets hotter in some places and colder in others and wetter in others and drier in others" is not the same as "it's not getting hotter". But good try at reading comprehension.

[phacemeltar]

Problem with America is we have an entire party who thinks government is their mommy and daddy, and we ended up with a nanny and an even bigger brother because of it.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

gosh darned poetry

[loramin]

The globe is getting hotter on average. At the same time, there are specific parts of the globe that are not getting hotter. If you can't understand that, you're a moron.

But look, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, without rational thought, so there's nothing I can do for you. When you want to start using your brain instead of just parroting whatever that crazy conspiracy website you read told you, come back here.

[phacemeltar]

The globe is getting hotter on average. At the same time, there are specific parts of the globe that are not getting hotter. If you can't understand that, you're a moron.

But look, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, without rational thought, so there's nothing I can do for you. When you want to start using your brain instead of just parroting whatever that crazy conspiracy website you read told you, come back here.

how can you claim that one resource is better than another for information? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

[DeruIsLove]

how can you claim that one fringe resource with little to no data/credibility to back it up is better than the best model that has been produced based on the contributions of virtually the entire scientific community? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

Fixed.

[DeruIsLove]

Actually I once was a brainwashed global warming drool cup. Then I used my brain instead of parroting everything Al Gore says (who's set up to make billions in carbon credits (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/)).

All Gore is a politician before anything. There's a reason he's not the poster child for environmental awareness any more (even when he was, he was mostly a joke). Pick a new drum to beat on.

[loramin]

how can you claim that one resource is better than another for information? whichever way you twist it, youre just parroting some information you read/listened to online.

It has nothing to do with information sources (well, I mean of course it does, but that's not why I'm giving up on this discussion).

If someone can't explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie, then they have a giant gaping hole in their world view. No amount of ranting at me about "them" and all the evil things "they" are doing is going to change that hole.

We're talking about are thousands of real people all over the world here, not shadowy phantoms in a paranoid schizophrenic's imagination. And not thousands of slick political operatives either, but nerdy scientists who devoted their lives to studying climate. All of them (except for <5% nutjobs) agree that global warming/climate change is real and man-made, so either they're all being controlled by an orbital mind control laser, or ... ?

[Glenzig]

It has nothing to do with information sources (well, I mean of course it does, but that's not why I'm giving up on this discussion).

If someone can't explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie, then they have a giant gaping hole in their world view. No amount of ranting at me about "them" and all the evil things "they" are doing is going to change that hole.

We're talking about are thousands of real people all over the world here, not shadowy phantoms in a paranoid schizophrenic's imagination. And not thousands of slick political operatives either, but nerdy scientists who devoted their lives to studying climate. All of them (except for <5% nutjobs) agree that global warming/climate change is real and man-made, so either they're all being controlled by an orbital mind control laser, or ... ?

I'm assuming that you think that there hasn't been a big buildup to the current belief in global warming. This has been a long process to get people on board. Didn't just happen overnight. Until relatively recently there was barely a 50/50 consensus on global warming. Need to learn some history young padawon.

[loramin]

Actually, the consensus has been around for awhile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

But let's say it's taken 20 years for scientists to agree, which would be a perfectly normal timeline for scientists to come to a consensus on a new issue. Please explain to me how 95% of the world's climate scientists were all simultaneously secretly convinced to lie over the course of the past twenty years.

[DeruIsLove]

I'm assuming that you think that there hasn't been a big buildup to the current belief in global warming. This has been a long process to get people on board. Didn't just happen overnight. Until relatively recently there was barely a 50/50 consensus on global warming. Need to learn some history young padawon.

This is clearly fabricated information. All available reputable sources tell a very different (and much more plausible) story.

[Glenzig]

This is clearly fabricated information. All available reputable sources tell a very different (and much more plausible) story.

Who decides what is and isn't reputable?

[Nirgon]

This thread gave me cancer

[loramin]

And so what? Consensus has been proven time and time again wrong. Copernicus and Galileo's books were initially burned. Humans are sheep, it's foolish to believe the scientific community is infallible.

As I said before, you all trust the official story on all other science. When you break your leg you don't tell your doctor "the scientific community is fallible and I don't want to be a sheep; rub some ducks on my wound!"

But for some reason, when it comes to a topic that big oil and big coal have paid millions to confuse you about, you suddenly don't trust the scientists. I wonder why?

[Glenzig]

This thread gave me cancer

Better watch out! Cancer causes cigarette smoke.

[DeruIsLove]

And so what? Consensus has been proven time and time again wrong. Copernicus and Galileo's books were initially burned. Humans are sheep, it's foolish to believe the scientific community is infallible.
Your appeal to authority won't work. Even if it did, the basic premise of your comparative argument is flawed. The Catholic church was a menace that kept civilisation in the dark ages for half a millennia longer than it needed to be. These scientists which you unfoundedly mistrust are the group that's trying to continue pushing humanity forward.
Who decides what is and isn't reputable?
Can't bring myself to dignify this with a response.
Actually my reservations against the theory of evolution and the theory of the big bang are well expressed on these forums. I don't think we have very many real scientists in the world, just parrots.

Trust me, nobody claimed you were intelligent.

[Deldanko]

Can't bring myself to dignify this with a response.


But you're willing to argue the matter with us? don't get self righteous on us.

this thread is hilarious.

[Deldanko]

If we could at least all agree to simply vote that would be awesome. That seems to be a big problem. So many keyboard politicians who will wait in line for the new EQ =) yet will not wait in line to vote.

[loramin]

Actually my reservations against the theory of evolution and the theory of the big bang are well expressed on these forums. I don't think we have very many real scientists in the world, just parrots.

And this is why we'll just have to agree to disagree. If someone's opinion is based on reason, then another reasonable person can have a reasonable discussion with them. But if your beliefs start somewhere other than rational logic (eg. the bible), then whether they are right or wrong no one is changing those beliefs, which makes any kind of discussion pointless.

[loramin]

If we could at least all agree to simply vote that would be awesome. That seems to be a big problem. So many keyboard politicians who will wait in line for the new EQ =) yet will not wait in line to vote.

Heh why wait? Absentee ballot is the way to go.

[Deldanko]

as long as you vote, that's all I preach.

[LulzSect]

i don't know what to believe about climate change but it is an interesting display of the human ego to think man is responsible for forces of nature

[Gaffin 7.0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7FMnpWMhY

[Gaffin 7.0]

also

[Gaffin 7.0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLIyh_L0_M8

[Glenzig]

But you're willing to argue the matter with us? don't get self righteous on us.

this thread is hilarious.

I second that emotion. Hilarious thread.

[Glenzig]

So as we move forward with global warming having been fully realized, what steps have to be taken to reverse the process?

[Gaffin 7.0]

haarp dawg haarp

[DeruIsLove]

So as we move forward with global warming having been fully realized, what steps have to be taken to reverse the process?

Gotta stop digging a knife deeper into a wound before you start talking about what kind of bandage to apply to it.

[Glenzig]

Gotta stop digging a knife deeper into a wound before you start talking about what kind of bandage to apply to it.

So what's the first step?

[DeruIsLove]

So what's the first step?

Kill the corporations that have their hands on the knife or at the very least make them stop pressing it.

[Glenzig]

Kill the corporations that have their hands on the knife or at the very least make them stop pressing it.

How do you control the people with all the control?

[DeruIsLove]

How do you control the people with all the control?

French revolution style.

[Glenzig]

French revolution style.

Did that actually work?

[DeruIsLove]

Did that actually work?

Depends. Do you get your history lessons from the same sources you do about climate change?

[Faron]

So as we move forward with global warming having been fully realized, what steps have to be taken to reverse the process?

That's where the debate is. Nature is going to do what it wants. There's absolutely nothing man can do at this point with our level of technology to reverse, or even have any kind of meaningful impact on these natural ups and downs of the climate. But it makes for good politics. Plebs eat it up.

[LulzSect]

Bonus points for intelligence combined with Lulzy fat kid gif.

[LulzSect]

Let's trade Tralina nudez pal.

[phacemeltar]

bump

[radditsu]

Let's trade Tralina nudez pal.

I'll trade gaffins fungi for a gander of those warlocks

[daasgoot]

Back to the OP's list though, I gotta ask: is this really what you care about?


Presidents have lives, and they go places. When they do they take AF One; yes it costs money, but the secret service pretty much requires it. Do you really want a president who never leaves the White House except for official business?


vs. having the company collapse and be worth nothing? Seems like 10% > 0%.


Really, your judge of a president is what meaningless gifts he gives other heads of state? Really?



Really, the president's ability to speak Spanish is how you judge him?


Again, the president's ability to spell is a big concern for you? Really?


I'm sure Obama told his pilot "go low and scare the fuck out of people" and that it had nothing to do with the advice of his pilot/secret service/etc.


Really? It matters whether a president uses a teleprompter like every other person on TV or not? Really?


C'mon: the old system didn't work either :p

I mean, there are lots of really good reasons to dislike Obama: why waste your time caring about his spelling?

Really? Bro, Really? Really Bro? Seriously Really Bro? Really? BRO REALLY BRO REALLY? REALLY? BRO REALLY? REALLY?, REALLY?, BRO REALLY?, REEEAAALLLYYY???

[G13]

Oh I would love to voice my opinions on the diefication of the worst president I have ever seen.


Reagan was the worst. Bush knocked down the fucking towers

Yea that's why he won reelection in a massive landslide and the economy was booming while he president

You probably weren't even a sperm when he was in office

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

This thread needs more dicks - PLUG UP THE HOLE MASKED HOMOPORNO CONNOISSEUR HERO!!

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Yea

Not an avid reader, are you?

[G13]

Not an avid reader, are you?

Obviously you're not a golfer

[radditsu]

Yea that's why he won reelection in a massive landslide and the economy was booming while he president

You probably weren't even a sperm when he was in office

I was alive I also read books and had history classes. I dont mind the asshole as much as I mind the deification of his ass. His "war on drugs" his "star wars" astronomical defense system spending. His underhanded foreign policy cause issues TO THIS DAY. A direct result of his actions is a prison system bigger than china, spending more money on obsolete warfare equipment than education and medocal research, and 49 out of 100 assholes in a senate and a majority of reatrds in the house hoovering his nuts and stopping real problems from being fixed. Oh not to mention his deregulation drumbeat caused these banks to get bigger and bigger until our entire monetary policy is beholden on the fucking honor system.



Fuck Reagan. But fuck his nutslurpers more.

[radditsu]

Fucking phone. Deal With IT.

[Strifer]

Let's trade Tralina nudez pal.

http://i.imgur.com/rjAuzE0.jpg