All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[tattuchu]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

It seems to be a religious thing, here in the States, to a large degree. Or there is, at least, a distinct correlation between the religious-minded -- or others who are, similarly, unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Aside from the inability of the religious to think rationally, though, or to use evidence-based reasoning, I've always wondered why they were so dead-set against the notion of climate change in general (and climate change, specifically, as a result of Man-made industrialization). Is it something beyond mere stupidity? What am I missing?

[tattuchu]

[Forty Two]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

It's not apolitical when the addressing the solutions to climate change. The climate change issue is used by SOME as a tool to pursue political/economic agendas discrete from the science.

[Animavore]

It's mostly just the US which has turned the issue of climate change into a "right vs left" thing (not that some haven't tried in the UK and Australia). Which just goes that to show you that the issue has nothing to do with leftwing politics or the media in the States, they just accept what everyone else who understands the science does, and everything to do with the right manufacturing the "controversy" and accusations of the other side doing the same is projection.

The issue is apolitical.

It seems to be a religious thing, here in the States, to a large degree. Or there is, at least, a distinct correlation between the religious-minded -- or others who are, similarly, unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. Aside from the inability of the religious to think rationally, though, or to use evidence-based reasoning, I've always wondered why they were so dead-set against the notion of climate change in general (and climate change, specifically, as a result of Man-made industrialization). Is it something beyond mere stupidity? What am I missing?

There was a politician here in Ireland from Kerry last year who said that only God can change the climate and we all laughed.

In the US a politician says something that stupid (like the cold weather disproves global warming) they get elected to some of the highest positions the country has to offer.

I don't know why.

[Animavore]

Refer to my sig.

[Forty Two]

Yes, that politician there in Ireland was a member of the Irish Dail -- Parliament - which is the equivalent of the US Congress. So, "we all laughed" except the majority of his constituency who voted for him, even though he is pro-Life, against same sex marriage, and an open climate change denier. Michael Fitzmaurice described climate change as a "Houdini act."

There are climate denialist lobbying and other groups out of Ireland too.

You say that in the US, a politicians says that and they get elected to some of the highest positions the country has to offer? Well, being elected to the US congress is about as high as most people get, unless it's elected President. How does that make it worse in the US?

You have this guy getting elected to your Parliament. But, somehow, the US is worse, because, what? You have higher offices in Ireland that he wouldn't get elected to? Which ones?

In Northern Ireland, there's Sammy Wilson, who called climate change a "giant con game" and a scam. In Northern Ireland - part of the UK - women can't get any abortions unless their life depends on it. Thomas Buchanan called for creationism to be taught in Northern Ireland's public schools. Trevor Clarke said that only gay people could be infected by HIV - like two years ago.

[Tero]

republican rapists.jpg (50.94 KiB) Viewed 1832 times

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Refer to my sig.

Because one lady referred to hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting?

Most people who voted for Trump wanted to help people, by expanding the economy, supporting American business, securing the border, reducing unemployment, and helping preserve American industry.

If you want to talk about ideologies that advocate "hurting" the right kind of people, one doesn't have to stray out of the Left. Stick it too 'em, right?

[Animavore]

[Sean Hayden]

Yep, like I said it's a common complaint. But these guys act like something special happened. Everyone is just batshit crazy man, or being manipulated, or both. :haironfuckinfire:

[Woodbutcher]

You advocate solving poverty. That's not a solution, that's an idea. How are you going to achieve that. Not to mention it's a stupid idea if the goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions.

You advocate taxing fuel, as if people will get away from something you tax...

I advocate reducing poverty in specifically that way. If the goal is to reduce carbon, then getting the poorest people better choices in the context of home heating (as an example) should yield a number of pounds of saved carbon emissions.

With wood as a fuel vs. natural gas as a fuel. Wood is a renewable resource. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Forests will regenerate, but you can't re-grow fossils.

But are we trying to reduce carbon emissions? Or preserve non-renewable resources?

See, not everyone agrees. Not everyone who disagrees is a 'climate change denier'.

When forests regenerate, they absorb CO2 from the air and generate oxygen. As long as the regeneration is equal to the cutting down, the adding of CO2 to the atmosphere is zero.

[Woodbutcher]

Refer to my sig.

Because one lady referred to hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting?

Most people who voted for Trump wanted to help people, by expanding the economy, supporting American business, securing the border, reducing unemployment, and helping preserve American industry.

If you want to talk about ideologies that advocate "hurting" the right kind of people, one doesn't have to stray out of the Left. Stick it too 'em, right?

Actually, I believe most people voted for Trump because, according to them, he's not like a politician. At least that is what a voter told me. They did not think anything would change if they voted for anybody else. They got a "reality" show instead. It's far moved from reality, though, I noticed with the very first reality show that it was just politics, not survival. Just a form of viewer conditioning that would make people more malleable to future government tactics.

[Brian Peacock]

With wood as a fuel vs. natural gas as a fuel. Wood is a renewable resource. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Forests will regenerate, but you can't re-grow fossils.

Ah, but god only put the fossils in the ground to test our faith.

[Woodbutcher]

With wood as a fuel vs. natural gas as a fuel. Wood is a renewable resource. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Forests will regenerate, but you can't re-grow fossils.

Ah, but god only put the fossils in the ground to test our faith.

And that is why we should not burn them, but worship them.