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

[ILLuminato]

The fact is that climate change and aggregate warming are man made. The other fact is that the most vocal end of the left wing environmental movement is just as scientifically illiterate as the Christian right.

I tend not to base my opinions on polemic which means that I am, inevitably, a political centrist. On science issues I try to follow the science.

Climate change is not the term for which is man-made. The man-made term is "global warming". Quite illiterate if you ask me.

So does that mean you're of the Christian right?

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

I don't know enough about this topic to weigh in on it heavily but I do agree with Spare on this one...

I think common sense would dictate we stop using up so much fossil fuels, stop polluting so much. I mean we don't have to live in a tree house and never use toilet paper but i don't think it will hurt anyone, **** it might even help if we as a species take a little bit more care of the planet we live on.

I lived in L.A and I know what a **** hole a major city can be like and people just not giving a fuk and throwing **** all over the floor etc.

Then again we might all be dead in 2012 so maybe we should all drive 8 cylinder cars, pollute and not give a fuk because we will all be dead anyway...

[squealpiggy]

Climate change is not the term for which is man-made. The man-made term is "global warming". Quite illiterate if you ask me.

So does that mean you're of the Christian right?

"Global Warming" is a term which while broadly accurate is popularly misunderstood. "Climate change" is a term which is less misunderstood. Both are permissible terms.

However even if I were using inaccurate terms such semantic nit-picking is one of the premier weapons in the arsenal of the scientifically illiterate. The term for man-made climate change is "anthropogenic climate change and aggregate global warming" by the way.

"Aggregate" means that average global temperatures are increasing, though this can lead to localized cooling and other effects.

My argument on global warming is purely scientific. Yours is purely political. You already arrived at a conclusion ("if I want to drive a great big car then science is wrong") and you try and justify it. I took a sceptical position initially and was convinced by the wealth of evidence.

I am, however, of the opinion that most of the "feel-good" initiatives to counter climate change are pretty nonsense. You might enjoy reading The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lumberg, an economist who has done a cost-benefit analysis on things like Kyoto and found them wanting. His position is that it would be less expensive and more beneficial to put resources into dealing with the effects of global warming than it would be putting resources into trying to stop global warming altogether.

A far better approach than simply burying your head in the sand.

[Welter_Skelter]

Jack has pretty much nailed it. No idea why Welter always weighs in on this particular US conservative talking point, though. He's never bothered about "socialized healthcare" or "abortion"...

The fact is that climate change and aggregate warming are man made. The other fact is that the most vocal end of the left wing environmental movement is just as scientifically illiterate as the Christian right.

I tend not to base my opinions on polemic which means that I am, inevitably, a political centrist. On science issues I try to follow the science.

I weigh in because I am Aware when I am being Lied to, Squeal.. I have very few talents in life.. But one of them is a Nose for bull****.. I have had girlfriends break up with me because they can't lie and manipulate me. Call it a blessing or curse.. either way.. I can smell a rat a mile away..

Man made global warming is one of those rats.. They hype alone is enough indication that something is not right..

I never post links.. because At the end of the day.. I don`t truly care what y'all think..And if you are REALLY open minded like you all say you are.. then I would hope you would peruse my claims to test their validity..( I doubt you do) .. But my opinions are not come to lightly.. I am not uneducated.. and I know how to research ANYTHING I don't understand..
I haven't come to this conclusion out of fancy..

One thing you can always be sure of.. "$$$$$$$$$$$$$" and Global Warming is a Multi-Billion Dollar industry..

And I repeat.. Look at what most people are willing to do for a weekly wage..

None of us have had an opportunity to be corrupt by outlandish amounts of money.. But based on what most of will do for few bucks.. I think Lying would be super EASY.. Now, if a Lie is being fueled by billions of Dollars, making it believable is simple.. Say something enough times and people will believe it.. That is whole crux of advertising.. and Hype is the Alpha form of repetitive advertising... Man Made Global Warming is seriously hyped

Here are some links.. just to show you.. that opposition exists .. and that the opposition is not the "Trailer Park Boys"..

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap1.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap2.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap3.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap4.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap5.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap6.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap7.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...cles/chap8.htm

and a **** load of Charts and graphs to back it up HERE
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...les/indexg.htm

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/agina...g1.htm#suspend
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hotair.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cool.htm

This is but one source of opposition.. the men are of science.. The data backs them up..

This alone should convince people that when it comes to Global Warming.. somebody is not telling the truth..
I stand by "beyond a reasonable doubt" before I say something absolute

When it comes to Global warming.. There is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to support it..

That is why I oppose it.. Not because I am some Neo Nazi Conservative


Abortion?... Her Choice.. and hers alone
Socialized Health Care?... Choice.. Take state run if you choose.. Go private if you choose.. GO private?? Still gotta pay your Public premiums

How's that For "Conservative" Squeal???????

[Dr.Depravity]

Global Warming is just an excuse to let the government control the energy industry. Not to mention implement a cap and trade program that will generate huge tax dollars.
We are experiencing politicians who have never run a company of any size dictate how we build cars, generate power, and provide health care.
They do this by the illusion that things will be better if they run them. History shows that this is definitely not the case. Apparently we are a nation of slow learners.

[P4P Opinion]

There really is an educational or intellectual divide between people who think like the topic creator and people who think like Jack or Squeal. I find it amusing that the topic creator doesn't understand what he is being told and just rambles on with his original thoughts.

[BmoreBrawler]

Hmm, I wouldn't go as far as you did Illuminato but there is no doubt that abortion is connected to population control. I am not a scientist, but the people that benefit from Global Warming "policy" are not people I trust.

[Dr.Depravity]

Hmm, I wouldn't go as far as you did Illuminato but there is no doubt that abortion is connected to population control. I am not a scientist, but the people that benefit from Global Warming "policy" are not people I trust.

Al Gore for one has made hundreds of millions of dollars on his film and investments into corporations that direct companies into "green" projects. That piece of **** sits in a mansion making a bigger carbon footprint than everyone that's posted on this thread and tells the rest of us we have to cut down.

[Spare Moody]

Glad to be a source of amusement! Green K :P

P.S. I like how you aren't into capitalizing the letter i... I might, I mean... i might try that... makes me look more badass i think. i might give that **** a whirl ( whether grammatically correct or not ) <--spaces just for you

yeah i never do because we all know what it means. it's not like we're typing our resumes up or constructing a college thesis. i also prefer spelling "werk" and "werd" in that format simply because the E is right next to R on the keyboard and it's easier. why bother the O button?

[TheJoker]

Welter... I won't quote you so this isn't too long but here's my reply.

No offense, the first thing I did was check who runs the site you posted. It's Philip Atkinson, the man who made the case for George W. Bush to be president for life because of the "inadequacy of Democracy". Even the political right distance themselves from him.

Here you go, the article (bolded the crazy)

"Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The [b]inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority[/b[, is undeniable -- for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."

I'll let that point rest.

The IPCC has the single largest peer reviewed reports on global warming, period. It has also taken the data from scientists like Zbigniew Jaworowski ( meantioned in the website you posted ) and they disagree with his conclusions. In other words, Jaworowski proposed his results and it didn't stand up to peer review but his data collected was included and fits the model put forth by the IPCC.

Please, I'll direct you to the IPCC website. The reports are free to read. There is your "CONCLUSIVE evidence".