"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
I just fundamentally disagree with you most of you it seems in how we should live and how government is involved, and not involved. Which, as much you disagree with, you should protect. The same as I want to protect your choice to believe what you want, despite me not agreeing. Your thought is no more valuable than mine and vice versa. Fairness. Equality. Right?

On one hand, we complain about the government not allowing us to grow a plant we like to smoke. A plant!

Now, you're arguing this government should control our ability to operate in certain ways, limit our choices as a consumer, and levy hefty taxes. Which the consumer pays for. This is the answer? Seems like the only real winners is the gov and who gets the cash (see Al Gore).
Click to expand...
No. I will not protect a government that has no interest in protecting me or my future. If it wants my support it needs to be responsive to my needs, not merely the needs of those possessing enough extra money to bribe it with.
 
visajoe1

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
No. I will not protect a government that has no interest in protecting me or my future. If it wants my support it needs to be responsive to my needs, not merely the needs of those possessing enough extra money to bribe it with.
Click to expand...
Agree!! I wasnt talking about protecting gov though, just protecting each others ability to think or believe what they want. Especially if it differs.

I'm not saying man has zero effect on the earth. I never said that, because I dont believe that.
What I dont believe is the scale and severity to which it is being sold to us. We can do better, absolutely. But, selling this end of the world idea and the only answers to prevent it being eat tree bark, live off grid, and make your own clothes is nonsense. exaggerating of course, but you get it.
 
Last edited:
visajoe1

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
anyone that manages people or has kids knows that, there is two sides to every story. the truth is usually in the middle. the hard part is finding it.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
Agree!! I wasnt talking about protecting gov though, just protecting each others ability to think or believe what they want. Especially if it differs.

I'm not saying man has zero effect on the earth. I never said that, because I dont believe that.
What I dont believe is the scale and severity to which it is being sold to us. We can do better, absolutely. But, selling this end of the world idea and the only answers to prevent it being eat tree bark, live off grid, and make your own clothes is nonsense. exaggerating of course, but you get it.
Click to expand...
I feel no need to protect incorrect points of view, especially when they come with obvious motives attached.

The point of debate is to get the correct answer and then decide on appropriate action. In this case, the correct answer is to acknowledge all the data about global warming and its consequences and get started on the solutions.

One less coal fired power plant in the world isn't a big dent, but it is a start. A precedent. When hundreds close, the difference is measurable. Measurable difference have measurable effects. That's the process of science, as opposed to 'belief'.

Believe what you want. I'm only interested in what you can prove and observe.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
anyone that manages people or has kids knows that, there is two sides to every story. the truth is usually in the middle. the hard part is finding it.
Click to expand...
This might be a good worldview for bloody noses at the schoolyard, but science doesn't work like this.

With science, you just keep getting a bloody nose until you figure out how to stop walking into the same walls.
 
visajoe1

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This might be a good worldview for bloody noses at the schoolyard, but science doesn't work like this.

With science, you just keep getting a bloody nose until you figure out how to stop walking into the same walls.
Click to expand...
how does science work exactly then? a great example, recently pointed out by another poster that commonly used newtons law of gravity theory has been disproved. there is two sides to that same story, and both are useful.

that cannot apply to the climate change debate?

the method as i remember went something like:
question
theory
test/measurement
analyze results
report
 
visajoe1

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
everything in life cycles. just like your period that you seem to be on right now. weather shows its 59 degrees in ok city
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
how does science work exactly then? a great example, recently pointed out by another poster that commonly used newtons law of gravity theory has been disproved. there is two sides to that same story, and both are useful.

that cannot apply to the climate change debate?

the method as i remember went something like:
question
theory
test/measurement
analyze results
report
Click to expand...
Your own arguments don't live up to your own standards.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
visajoe1 said:
ok. im wrong, your're right. feel better? how big of a check should we each write annually? lord knows it will cost more money than is on the earth. maybe.

again, i have some great end of the world insurance to sell you guys.
Click to expand...
Don't need your money and don't want your insurance.

And yeah, allowing the fossil fuel industry to dump waste products into the air has created a costly mess.

Exxon isn't exactly hurting, maybe they and other fossil fuel corporations should pay for the damage they inflicted, not only by selling the source of AGW but also funding a lobby industry to delay action on global warming. Every day of delay meant huge profits. Their product caused the mess, now they can pay for cleaning it up.

Since you now agree that politicians should not be allowed to hold public office if they don't believe in the science of climate change, how bout if you support politicians who will join the rest of the world to mitigate the damage we've already caused and implement policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Don't need your money and don't want your insurance.

And yeah, allowing the fossil fuel industry to dump waste products into the air has created a costly mess.

Exxon isn't exactly hurting, maybe they and other fossil fuel corporations should pay for the damage they inflicted, not only by selling the source of AGW but also funding a lobby industry to delay action on global warming. Every day of delay meant huge profits. Their product caused the mess, now they can pay for cleaning it up.

Since you now agree that politicians should not be allowed to hold public office if they don't believe in the science of climate change, how bout if you support politicians who will join the rest of the world to mitigate the damage we've already caused and implement policies to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Click to expand...
An excellent idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top