Liberal censorship - We know you can burn a book, but can you light a kindle?
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
You do know you've probably converted more fence sitters to gay bashing racists than Jesus.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I disagree. Anyone dumb enough to become "gay bashing racists" were going to anyway, regardless of what anyone says.
People "on the fence" aren't swayed by such stupid bullshit, as they were smart enough to come to the fence in the first place
youknowthekid!
Active Member
Sadly this is the first post I'll entertain in the political forum. So... let me waste some time.
The spark for me coming on to RIU, besides using it very frequently in the first place, was reading post number #55 by Nullis in the link below.
https://www.rollitup.org/organics/597203-fox-farm-organic-2.html
Now I'm not a huge organic lifestyle guy, and I'm sorry but unless I go big outdoors I'll never grow organic, however I have an absolute appreciation of how organic growing works. It's awesome, like having your own little microcosm for your sexy girl! It's literally alive, and you give it very much unadulterated, naturally-occurring food to feed the living system, and in turn, the plant.
-The biggest point of the entire thread could be summed up in a few sentences. You don't mix up a ton of great ingredients and let that microcosm build to just pour chemical ferts on to diminish the viability of the entire system.
Don't you get this is what we're doing to the planet Earth on a macrocosmic scale? There's a network of 7 BILLION people consuming IMMEASURABLE amounts of LIMITED resources on a daily basis. These resources come from the microcosms that are the building blocks of the web that make up the entire ENVIRONMENT. These resources are not used to build up and enhance other microcosm's, they're used to produce totally UNATURAL products and bi-products that we inevitably return to natural microcosm's; Just as Nullis described, that system is ruined, totally destroyed by man-made substances that the system has not grown side-by-side with for MILLIONS of years!!!
Separate ENVIRONMENT and CLIMATE in your mind, PLEASE. They're not interchangeable. CLIMATE issues are a direct result of the warped ENVIRONMENTS that produce them and not easily traced since we're fucking everything up!!! And no shit climates CHANGE over time, I wonder if India was the same climate 500million years ago, or was there just vast ocean there? If yes, then I suppose the climate must have been a little different, right? The point is we're changing environments in an extremely unnatural way, in turn destroying all the natural processes that support life.
Take a look at world population
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
We have doubled since 1970!!! The REAL/IRREVERSIBLE production has only occurred in that short time, and has only gained attention now as the growth, and compounding issues continue to ACCELERATE.
I mean it's common sense that we're fucking up the planet, right? It has nothing to do with SCIENCE, it's literally COMMON SENSE. Sorry, our planet can't survive as a plant given chemical nutes....
Why is it some folks first instinct to just be contrary? Or better yet, how can you be harshly opposed to a group of individuals who 'err on the side of caution'?
The spark for me coming on to RIU, besides using it very frequently in the first place, was reading post number #55 by Nullis in the link below.
https://www.rollitup.org/organics/597203-fox-farm-organic-2.html
Now I'm not a huge organic lifestyle guy, and I'm sorry but unless I go big outdoors I'll never grow organic, however I have an absolute appreciation of how organic growing works. It's awesome, like having your own little microcosm for your sexy girl! It's literally alive, and you give it very much unadulterated, naturally-occurring food to feed the living system, and in turn, the plant.
-The biggest point of the entire thread could be summed up in a few sentences. You don't mix up a ton of great ingredients and let that microcosm build to just pour chemical ferts on to diminish the viability of the entire system.
Don't you get this is what we're doing to the planet Earth on a macrocosmic scale? There's a network of 7 BILLION people consuming IMMEASURABLE amounts of LIMITED resources on a daily basis. These resources come from the microcosms that are the building blocks of the web that make up the entire ENVIRONMENT. These resources are not used to build up and enhance other microcosm's, they're used to produce totally UNATURAL products and bi-products that we inevitably return to natural microcosm's; Just as Nullis described, that system is ruined, totally destroyed by man-made substances that the system has not grown side-by-side with for MILLIONS of years!!!
Separate ENVIRONMENT and CLIMATE in your mind, PLEASE. They're not interchangeable. CLIMATE issues are a direct result of the warped ENVIRONMENTS that produce them and not easily traced since we're fucking everything up!!! And no shit climates CHANGE over time, I wonder if India was the same climate 500million years ago, or was there just vast ocean there? If yes, then I suppose the climate must have been a little different, right? The point is we're changing environments in an extremely unnatural way, in turn destroying all the natural processes that support life.
Take a look at world population
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
We have doubled since 1970!!! The REAL/IRREVERSIBLE production has only occurred in that short time, and has only gained attention now as the growth, and compounding issues continue to ACCELERATE.
I mean it's common sense that we're fucking up the planet, right? It has nothing to do with SCIENCE, it's literally COMMON SENSE. Sorry, our planet can't survive as a plant given chemical nutes....
Why is it some folks first instinct to just be contrary? Or better yet, how can you be harshly opposed to a group of individuals who 'err on the side of caution'?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
No, it is not common sense, it is a matter of opinion.
And BTW, what resources are limited?? By the time we run out of anything we can be farming asteroids if the material is that important.
The *side of caution* you are referring to wants to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries in some hair brained scheme to try to get them to NOT create power. And they admit after all of that the change will be minimal. Some scientists have come out and said that even if we achieved ZERO carbon dioxide emissions (kind of hard since we create it from BREATHING!!!) that it would not stop the global warming.
This isnt about the environment, the planet or the people. It is a political manipulation of science to promote fears and take more power and control from the people.
Everyone wants to save the planet...
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Read this statement again. This is the type of shit they use to justify wastefully consuming our planet away while the ocean becomes a garbage mire. Don't worry, there's plenty left in the asteroid belt.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
It was in fact that mindset that got us to where we are today
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Attempt to dismiss the work of two climatologists - FAILmcnider and christy work with a guy who takes evangelical pledges on climate change and believes in creationism, and is also the "official climatologist of the rush limbaugh show".
lulz.
meanwhile, let's take a look at the actual predictions from 30 years ago
more current:
when you remove the obvious bias and bad science from christy, mcnider, and rush limbaugh's pet "scientitst" spencer:
even their own work does them in once peer reviewed, it's pretty funny. but not unexpected, this has been happening to them for over 20 years. they just keep getting it wrong over and over, but they keep trying.
it's fucking cute.
the funniest part is when their minions like you guys accuse everyone else of getting it wrong, which is exactly backwards from what is actually happening.
you guys are idiots.
Well, they don't work for big oil, so I'll try to discount their work because they once talked to a guy who ate dinner in the same restaurant as a guy who TOOK EVANGELICAL DONATIONS. Yup, we can discount their work now. I know, let me throw in Rush Limbaugh's name a couple of times for good measure, even though the two climatologists we're actually discussing (not the one you ridiculously tried to inject) have ZERO ties to Limbaugh. Then, I'll think I've disputed a chart made up of over 100 models by posting a chart based on a few.
Guess what, all the climatologist you prop up have worked with two guys, who worked with "a guy" who takes evangelical pledges on climate change and believes in creationism, and is also the "official climatologist of the rush limbaugh show".
I guess every scientist in the IPCC can be discounted now, by association of course.
Doo Doo, Doo Doo Doo Doo Doo, Doo Doo, Doo Doo
Look Ma, Clowns.
midgetaus
Member
and 11,500 years ago they all had google maps and could see a "global flood" from space right?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No doubt. I carry plastic trash off the reef everyday.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;LcKOIR84-SM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LcKOIR84-SM[/video]
DutchKillsRambo
Well-Known Member
So the UN has more money to spend on a pro-AGW agenda then all the energy companies together have to spend on an an anti-AGW agenda? How does this even make sense in your mind?
Yeah carbon-tax credits are clearly a money making scheme and dubious at best in their efficacy. But is raising awareness to try and lower pollution such a bad thing really? Why is riding your bike or walking to the store every once in a while such a partisan clusterfuck? It's not like a little exercise is gonna hurt the average overweight American.
It doesn't take hard science to prove shitting where you sleep is a bad thing.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Yes, the US government and the UN by far outspend all the energy companies, it's not even close.
I think you are confusing co2 with pollution, two different things.
Riding or not riding a bike is not a partisan issue, but when our government scams us into believing we need to ride a bike to save the planet, that's tyranny.
Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending. The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation. They are requesting $1.616 billion dollars. They want $766 million dollars for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability Program. This is a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) an increase of 16%. The say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences an increase of 8.1% and Earth Sciences up 8.7%. Oh, and not to be left out we need $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%. Thats a mighty hefty sum of money to dig into if youre doing climate change research.http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/The-Big-Winners-In-The-Climate-Change-Money-Game.html
DutchKillsRambo
Well-Known Member
And yet you conveniently left out all the millions of dollars funneled to the federal govt by said energy companies in the form of PACS.
Who has a bigger stake in this game? The NSF or ExxonMobil?
And do you think a website withe the tagline "The No. 1 Source for Energy and Oil News" that pops up asking for a subscription to "Energy Insider" might be biased? Not to mention the fact that article is over 3 years old.
Like I said, carbon-tax credits are bullshit. Still doesn't excuse us to drive a Hummer to pick up groceries. And how exactly does riding your bike instead of driving benefit the govt that makes billions off gas taxes?
Edit: Seriously, people like you have no idea what "tyranny" is. Riding your bike ain't it. Being slipped Po-210 in your tea because you're a political dissenter is.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Monies from political action committees do not go towards scientific research, more towards influencing elections.
The federal government.
I take it you're one of the global warming sheeple, that's your choice, good luck with your bicycle.
And to be quite frank, if you think you or any other alarmist has the right to tell me what i can drive or cannot drive, you can go FYorself.
DutchKillsRambo
Well-Known Member
So money spent on political connections can't affect scientific research funded by said money?
The NSF isn't the Federal Govt. And you didn't address the fact that the feds receive billions in gasoline taxes. What do they have to gain by diminishing those funds?
And finally, you used the word "sheeple", portraying you as a partisan hack that thinks YouTube gives them real answers. Seriously, "sheeple"? How old are you honestly? Anything older than 16 and still using that word means you are an idiot. Sorry, but that's the truth. Attack data, attack people, use some numbers to bolster your point, but please don't use the term "sheeple".
Unless you're an OWS supporter. I seem to remember them loving that retarded term.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You're really reaching here dutch, the federal government spends about $4billion a year, and as I demonstrated in the last post, Exxon/Moble spends 1/1000th of that.
now if you want to throw in a some thousands from pacs, feel free.
You asked who had the bigger stake in this, I answered honestly and correctly, you just happened to leave the biggest culprit out of the choices.
And yes, the NSF is part of the federal government but that is really immaterial to this issue, other than the funding they receive for research.
All I can say Dutch, is you just don't get it. The federal government will continue to bring in revenue from excise taxes, it's not their plan to immediately eradicate fossil fuels, they want to tax them more.
I use the term sheeple for idiots who believe and follow anything the government says they should.
so sorry you are sensitive to that term, but I can see where you are coming from, I don't appreciate when someone refers to me as "people like you"
Shall we start over?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Then why are you trying to censor?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Why do you still insist the world is warming when it hasn't. Oh yeah, because WE don't understand science.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You don't understand science or how to read graphs and charts