Congress is more likely to focus on policing its members attire than drafting legislation in fighting nepotism, child poverty or even congress members(and their families)trading stocks. Especially with this House GOP….
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Congress is more likely to focus on policing its members attire than drafting legislation in fighting nepotism, child poverty or even congress members(and their families)trading stocks. Especially with this House GOP….
When you compare the last two presidential periods, do you think that Biden has done a better job or do you pine for the stability that Trump created?
Don’t forget Trump’s healthcare plan he is two weeks away from completing.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 10,556
- Team supported
- City
Workers of the world, unite.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Never forget 'infrastructure week'.Don’t forget Trump’s healthcare plan he is two weeks away from completing.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,125
Absolute bullshit. Of course, in proper scientific circles, there has never been a reasonable argument that global warming isn't happening, but in the world of scientists bought and paid for by the fossil fuel companies, particularly in the 80s and 90s in America, there absolutely was rampant denial of global warming. And consequently, in the media, politics and the general public, where decisions actually get affected/made, complete denial of global warming was widespread.I don't think there has ever been a time when the argument was that there is no such thing as global warming. This is just something leftist say to make themselves feel superior.
We all have memories mate. You can't try and argue against what we saw with our own eyes. People arguing that the ice wasn't actually melting. People showing graphs that show that the earth is 'actually cooling' (which was later modified to show that it was a 'natural cycle of warming and cooling'). They were literally hiring people who were part of a similar campaign for the tobacco industry years earlier (The Advancement of Sound Science Center, for example). The operated a campaign similar to what you're trying to do here, by presenting your side as 'healthy skepticism' that will naturally delay any action rather than denial of a clear set of facts with mountains of data to back it up.
As for the left vs right debate, it's only a right-wing issue because the right, since Reagan and Thatcher at least, intrinsically prioritise the interests of big corporations over the interests of the general population. So when a fossil fuel funded think tank comes out with a non peer reviewed 'study' that they've sent directly to the media rather than academic journals, the right wing politicians, journalists, columnists, etc, will be happy to eat it up and amplify it. When it came to the overwhelming consensus on proper academic journals, however, well we all know the right wing have 'had enough of experts' by now.
The right wing has always been the protector of the established power structures, be it religion, monarchy, aristocracy, or in modern times, the corporate powers, which is why they've fought tooth and nail to maintain the power of all of those groups throughout history and attack anything that threatens them. This is just the latest chapter in a long line of failures to be on the right side of evidence from the right wing establishment.
DrBlueBob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Messages
- 6,529
- Team supported
- Need you ask?
Global cooling or global warming, whether or not human actions are solely to blame is all rather irrelevant to the central tenet that we, as a species shouldn't be polluting the planet as we do.I don't think there has ever been a time when the argument was that there is no such thing as global warming. This is just something leftist say to make themselves feel superior.
Let me clarify for you. Initially at least in the 60s and the 70 there was an argument as to whether we were going towards a global cooling or warming. If you were around in the 70s you'd remember the ads about global cooling and the effects of Aerosols. Those who disagreed back then pointed to the existing counter arguments of whether we were looking at a coming cooling or warming. There were some evidence for both claims. This, the sensible concluded we needed more data.
It's funny, that those who said we needed more data have now being rebranded as denying global cooling or is it warming?
Next, once global warming became the prevailing view, the question of what causes it and how can its negative effects be mitigated became the issue. Leftist, like you I suppose, concluded it was man made and we need to stop it by limiting our emissions.
On the other side, the arguments were 1) Temperature is NOT solely affected by what humans do, and 2.) The actions of governments in the West will not change the actions of those in S. America, Africa or Asia.
This objection has been reframed as denying humans cause climate change. It's an effective tactic. Albeit dishonest.
But none of that answers the present question: Will the present climate change proposals in America and England and other Western countries change the faith of the World's climate?
I mean forget the climate deniers. These are questions you should be asking if climate survival was truly important to you as many on the left claim it is.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
The funniest thing about Dax is how liberal he is given how the average American conservative today would define him. He’d be dragged behind a pick-up truck if he said the things he does in the wrong town. Not close to ideologically stringent enough.
Actually it's not. Our existence in itself pollutes the planet. So whether for not we should be polluting the planet is definitely not the central tenet.Global cooling or global warming, whether or not human actions are solely to blame is all rather irrelevant to the central tenet that we, as a species shouldn't be polluting the planet as we do.
The planet will be fine no matter what we do. But we may or may not exist in it either through a) our own actions, b) the happenstance of the planet's actions or c) a mixture of both.
The important question is to determine what should be done to increase the probability of survival and prosperity for humans and that of the greater planetary ecology. What should be done? And what can be done given the existing constraints that exist?
The issue isn't as simple as lefties would like and it not an issue between planet lovers and global warming deniers.
Again, I will note none of you have addressed the main question of whether policies enacted in England and the U.S. will engender change in the trajectory of global warming.
The simple answer to that question is NO. It won't.
U S. And England can go to zero emissions tomorrow and it would have an inconsequential effect at best on global temperature trajectory.
So discuss that reality. Not some fake arguments about climate deniers.