How Liberals, the Green Movement, Abortion, Gay Marriage are all connected

[ILLuminato]

"Change" is hardly a novel concept.

That's not all I'm talking about.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...U2MDkxOGYyYTE=

[JACK D. RIPPER]

Conservatives are working on in though.



What's the deal with you and Lexus cars? They wouldn't let you test drive on until you could prove you could finance it?

Luxury goods are not generally considered to be a legitimate requirement in the pursuit of happiness. The security and companionship of a long term loving physical relationship generally is.



The trouble with polygamy is that by definition they are exploitative and do not exist apart from in intrinsically unbalanced societies. In other words if your pursuit of happiness requires multiple wives then this will directly affect the pursuit of happiness of your wives who, like most women, need exclusivity in order to have security and thus happiness.



Ooooh the "try looking it up" fallacy. Here's a better idea, it's your argument, you explain it!



Citation needed. I know where this idea is from, it's an oft-cited Exxon funded study from a decade ago, that has since been refuted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm

But you still really ought to provide a citation to show that you arrived at the knowledge by some way other than "I heard someone say it and now something Malthusian is happening."



You need a citation for the 5%. Other sources say that the concentration of new CO2 levels caused by fossil fuels is 80-85% so cite up or shut up. Furthermore CO2 is bad in large concentrations, just like oxygen is.



If the Club of Rome is relevant you should explain what it is and why it is part of the conversation. Oh and conspiracy theories? Always a winner.

We can link to random sources all day long. The BBC is controlled by the Malthusians so that choice doesnt surprise me. And the article only talks about a 20 year span. That is major LOL right there. 20 years is nothing in climate science.
I dont really owe you any citations. This is a boxing forum. Its clear that you want to believe what you want.
If you want a citation you should read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear" which has detailed scientific studies on the subject.
Co2 may be bad in large concentrations but we havent even come close to reaching that threshold.
The biggest thing that should stick out in your mind about this pseudo science is the fact that climate studies are only about 150 years old. That is a speck in a chronological sense, so for the people pushing this to rely on studies that barely span a fraction of the earth's existence should call their motivations into question.
You can label it conspiracy all you want, but you're arguments are a regurgitation of nonsense that is parroted by the majority of lemmings.
Not good company to be in.

Since you're obviously a moron, here is a quote you might find interesting regarding the club of rome. The Club of Rome by the way is an elitist think tank in Europe and one of the round table groups that takes its orders from Bilderberg.

This is an excerpt from a book written by a couple of the founders of the Club of Rome where they talk about creating a new enemy against humanity to fill the fear gap left by the collapse of the soviet union.
The title of the book is called: The First Global Revolution, its on Amazon.

"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 ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

And p.s just because Exxon funds a study doesnt necessarily mean its wrong. The medieval warm period statistic is a historical consensus w/ or w/out exxon's study.

[Dr.Depravity]

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this was too good not to share.
“This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political, not scientific”
- Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) today exposed a “smoking gun” White House memo to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The memo warns that regulation of small CO2 emitters will have “serious economic consequences" for businesses and the overall economy.

Barrasso produced the memo while questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee budget hearing.

“I received a memo this morning, that’s marked ‘Deliberative: Attorney-Client Privilege’. In this memo Counsel for the White House repeatedly, repeatedly suggests a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political and not scientific”, Barrasso said.

The EPA has failed to release the memo and has ignored the advice.

The nine-page White House memo undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health.

“This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business. This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America,” Barrasso said.

Quoting from the memo to the EPA, Barrasso said that, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated en****** throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

The memo is an amalgamation of findings from government agencies' sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA.

“This smoking gun memo is in stark contrast to the official position presented by the Administration and the EPA Administrator,” Barrasso said.

Despite the findings in the memo, the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act.

According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA's April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare.

The memo - marked as "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege" - doesn't have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed to news agencies that it was prepared by Obama administration staff.

BACKGROUND

The White House brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that "scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified..."

The White House memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are "not well determined" and "not well understood."

It warns about the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is "no demonstrated direct health effects," and the scientific data on which the agency relies are "almost exclusively from non-EPA sources."

The memo contends that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.

[ILLuminato]

I know I said I was done with this thread, but this was too good not to share.
“This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political, not scientific”
- Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) today exposed a “smoking gun” White House memo to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The memo warns that regulation of small CO2 emitters will have “serious economic consequences" for businesses and the overall economy.

Barrasso produced the memo while questioning EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson during the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee budget hearing.

“I received a memo this morning, that’s marked ‘Deliberative: Attorney-Client Privilege’. In this memo Counsel for the White House repeatedly, repeatedly suggests a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were political and not scientific”, Barrasso said.

The EPA has failed to release the memo and has ignored the advice.

The nine-page White House memo undermines the EPA's reasoning for a proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health.

“This misuse of the Clean Air Act will be a trigger for overwhelming regulation and lawsuits based on gases emitted from cars, schools, hospitals and small business. This will affect any number of other sources, including lawn mowers, snowmobiles and farms. This will be a disaster for the small businesses that drive America,” Barrasso said.

Quoting from the memo to the EPA, Barrasso said that, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated en****** throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

The memo is an amalgamation of findings from government agencies' sent from the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA.

“This smoking gun memo is in stark contrast to the official position presented by the Administration and the EPA Administrator,” Barrasso said.

Despite the findings in the memo, the White House has given the EPA the green light to move ahead with regulation under the Clean Air Act.

According to government records, the document was submitted by the OMB as comment on the EPA's April proposed finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health and welfare.

The memo - marked as "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege" - doesn't have a date or a named author. But an OMB spokesman confirmed to news agencies that it was prepared by Obama administration staff.

BACKGROUND

The White House brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary. Administrator Jackson said in the endangerment summary that "scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified..."

The White House memo notes, the EPA endangerment technical document points out there are several areas where essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are "not well determined" and "not well understood."

It warns about the adequacy of the EPA finding that the gases are a harm to the public when there is "no demonstrated direct health effects," and the scientific data on which the agency relies are "almost exclusively from non-EPA sources."

The memo contends that the endangerment finding, if finalized by the administration, could make agencies vulnerable to litigation alleging inadequate environmental permitting reviews, adding that the proposal could unintentionally trigger a cascade of regulations.

[P4P Opinion]

I just finished cringing so hard that I nearly dislocated my shoulder. I don't think there is anything worse to read than an arrogant ignoramus.

[squealpiggy]

We can link to random sources all day long. The BBC is controlled by the Malthusians so that choice doesnt surprise me.

Oh yes, it's a sinister conspiracy of "Malthusians" isn't it? It always is with you idiots.

I dont really owe you any citations. This is a boxing forum.

Truly pathetic. I deduce from this comment that you do not have any citations. If you don't want to engage in the debate then don't engage in it.

If you want a citation you should read Michael Crichtons "State of Fear" which has detailed scientific studies on the subject.

If I want a citation I should read a novel by Michael Crichton? Are you serious?

Interestingly enough Michael Crichton died recently. What killed him? Was it mutated gorillas? Was it evil nanorobots? Was it cloned dinosaurs? Nope. It was cancer. Ordinary, unmutated, untechnological throat cancer.

Co2 may be bad in large concentrations but we havent even come close to reaching that threshold.

According to the data we have reached a concentration which is causing increased warming rates. Or is it only Malthusian warming so we can dismiss it?

The biggest thing that should stick out in your mind about this pseudo science is the fact that climate studies are only about 150 years old.

List of things discovered by science in the last 150 years:

Steam propulsion
Internal combustion propulsion
Jet engines
Rocket engines
Evolution
Antiseptic
Antibiotics
Radio communication
Nuclear power
X rays
Modern Anaesthesiology
Computing
Ultrasound
Relativity
Quantum physics

You know I'm going to stop there, but I could go on and on. The age of enlightenment was around 160 years ago and since then we have made almost all of our scientific discoveries. Suggesting that a field of science can be dismissed becasue it is only studied in our most scientifically advanced age is absurd, like the rest of your non-arguments

You can label it conspiracy all you want, but you're arguments are a regurgitation of nonsense that is parroted by the majority of lemmings.

Why don't you call me a "sheeple" too? I can't stand adolescents who think they have all the answers.

Since you're obviously a moron, here is a quote you might find interesting regarding the club of rome.

And I can tell you are an adolescent because you name-drop obscure groups in an attempt to appear better read than adults, when in fact you come across as unjustifiably arrogant and in possession of rather shallow understanding.

The Club of Rome by the way is an elitist think tank in Europe and one of the round table groups that takes its orders from Bilderberg.

Ah yes, the Bilderberg Group, the most famous secret organisation since the Knights Templar.

"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"

OK now I googled this particular quote and interestingly enough it is quoted exclusively on websites which promote either right-wing conservative talking points or new world order type conspiracy theories.

Perhaps you could provide an author and a title from the "book" you suggested it was taken from.

[squealpiggy]

I should point out that I think programmes to reduce the amount of CO2 are not only prohibitively expensive, they are also doomed to failure at this time. Without some sort of technological breakthrough which doesn't really on fossil fuel we're not going to stop the problem, let alone reverse it. Long term the solution is a workable alternative to fossil fuel. Short term the best solution is to put resources into dealing with the effects of climate change. Low-lying land in danger of flooding? Invest in sea walls and barriers. Polar bear populations being reduced? Work on moving the endangered populations into zones in which the bears are thriving. Malaria hot-zones increasing in size? Invest in distributing mosquito nets and deet.

I don't think that the luddite mentality of the environmental movement is even close to workable, but I don't think that insisting against all evidence that there isn't a problem is helpful either. Carefully targeting the places we can influence and be effective is the way forwards.

A decent book is The Sceptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg.

[ILLuminato]

I should point out that I think programmes to reduce the amount of CO2 are not only prohibitively expensive, they are also doomed to failure at this time. Without some sort of technological breakthrough which doesn't really on fossil fuel we're not going to stop the problem, let alone reverse it. Long term the solution is a workable alternative to fossil fuel. ?????? Are you just babbling? Short term the best solution is to put resources into dealing with the effects of climate change. Low-lying land in danger of flooding? Invest in sea walls and barriers. Polar bear populations being reduced?Shouldn't evolution fix all of this???? Work on moving the endangered populations into zones in which the bears are thriving. Malaria hot-zones increasing in size? Invest in distributing mosquito nets and deet.

I don't think that the luddite mentality of the environmental movement is even close to workable, but I don't think that insisting against all evidence that there isn't a problem is helpful either.I've given you evidence before. Ice levels recently rose in the arctic. Carefully targeting the places we can influence and be effective is the way forwards.While subsidizing with trillions of dollars while bankrupting the economy?

A decent book is The Sceptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg.

I'm glad you're becoming more skeptic to this environmenatlism bs though.

[P4P Opinion]

If I want a citation I should read a novel by Michael Crichton? Are you serious?

I stopped reading after his first line, such was the ridiculousness of his claim about the BBC, but I wish I'd carried on now. It's been a while since I've seriously laughed out loud at something I've read on a forum, but it just happened.

Dapeedreean: Seriously, please stop. It's embarrassing for everyone involved. Quit before you get lapped again, because while you seem to believe you're bringing something intellectual to the table, you're really, really not. At least Illuminato has the benefit of being an elaborate joke-hoax.

[squealpiggy]

?????? Are you just babbling?

Absolutely. Suggesting that attempting to reduce our reliance on CO2 pollutants prior to having a workable alternative is babbling to the most insane degree.

Shouldn't evolution fix all of this????

Evolution would ultimately mean extinction should current trends persist without any action being taken. Evolution describes what is, not what ought to be.

I've given you evidence before. Ice levels recently rose in the arctic.

You actually didn't give evidence. You said "Ice levels recently have risen in the Arctic". That is not evidence, that's a false assertion. Or "lie" to use the vernacular.

While subsidizing with trillions of dollars while bankrupting the economy?

No, I don't think that is even close to what I am advocating. In fact the point that I was making was that carbon reduction programmes such as the Kyoto agreement are too expensive, and a waste of time to boot. In fact the point I was making was precisely the opposite of your evaluation of it. I'm proposing putting a fraction of the budget already earmarked for "green" initiatives into humanitarian initiatives instead, that way it costs less and more people benefit.