|
On August 18 2007 03:43 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2007 00:42 DTDominion wrote:Pat Robertson can stop being a shit head any time now: "I ran into Pat Robertson at a pro-life conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue -- recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.
"We are now treating the Earth, specifically this country, as a killing ground," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block new abortion clinics.
"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Robertson said, "and preventing them from constructing these clinics." I mean seriously, what the hell is up with this. The people who want to build the clinics own the land, why do they have any right to stop the clinics from being built? Oh wait, fuck me I'm sorry, this story wasn't about Pat Robertson and abortion clinics. In fact: "I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue -- recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda. "We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources. "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." LinkAll you have to do is change some words and the stupidity of what Gore is actually saying becomes so much more clear. Why anyone takes him seriously I don't know, even if you do care about global warming (I don't). Focus: Setting aside actual discussion of global warming as much as possible, why do people care what Al Gore has to say? Just as an example (this hopefully won't be an abortion thread): I personally have no preference as to whether or not the law is pro-choice or pro-life. Reasonable arguments can be made for both sides. What I do think though is (a) the federal government has no place to decide whether abortion is right or wrong. For those wondering ,yes, I think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. (b) If abortion is legal, it should be discouraged as much as possible. Whether it's a minor having to seek permission from a parent, or a woman having to get the consent of the father if possible. Abortion shouldn't be treated like it's something that can be just done on a whim. Yet, you won't see me latching on to what Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter or any of their ilk think about abortion. Even if in many ways I agree with them, they're obviously insane. Why would I want any of those types of people to be the public face of something I agree with when all they'll do is just make my argument look stupid? Which is exactly what's happening with Al Gore and global warming. The dude's obviously nuts and doesn't care about exaggerating the facts to win converts. So, bringing this back to the focus of the thread, why do people who want to see humanity take action on Global Warming allow someone like Al Gore to be in many ways the public face of their movement? I'm sorry, the reason Robertson is considered a nut, a liar, and dangerous, is not because he makes a call for civil disobedience in your fake press release. Its because that release plus pre knowledge of other things he has said lead people to think he's dangerous. Its that hearing about abortion clinics from religous leaders reminds people of fanatics who bomb and kill. This is a man who has called for the assassination of a foreign president, the bombing of the state department, and revolt against supreme court rulings. This is a man who is racist against almost everyone. This is a disgenuous man who performed faith healings in the 70s, and currently hawks diet products that allow him to leg press 2,000 pounds. How is he the public face of Christianity? If Gore had a reputation of support for people who blow up buildings, then his call for civil disobedience would take a different light. If Gore had a history of deception and lying, it would be worrying.
Completely misses my point. If anything, you're making my point for me.
Yes, Robertson is an idiot. Which is why the fake article, assuming it was real, would justifiably make people angry.
Why doesn't what Gore's actually doing make you angry? You obviously seem to think that global warming is a very real concern. Wouldn't you want Gore to not do things that hurt the credibility of the global warming movement? Civil disobedience doesn't make you look good.
|
On August 18 2007 02:57 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Picketing is obstruction of legal activity, but is also itself a legal activity and therefore not non-compliance with the law.
Is it? I'd be shocked if picketing to stop a legal activity was legal but I guess I'd be wrong.
And Nony, I have no problem with protesting as long as it's legal. Stopping the construction of coal mines doesn't strike me as legal, but maybe I'm wrong.
It's not a freedom of speech issue in my opinion, it's an issue of people being allowed to do what they are legally able to.
|
The problem is guys, that if somebody dosen't physically stand up and protect nature and the environement, none of this talk and 'discussion' will do any good......politics is ruled by money and financial prospects. The time for talking is done, and if someone like Gore wants to step up the pressure like this, then go ahead, maybe some people will finally notice.
Just my two cents.
|
Here's the difference:
Building an abortion clinic only affects the property owner and the people who choose to use it.
Building a coal firing powerplant or whatever polluting thing Al Gore is talking about affects everyone. Winds blow smog out of their property and into yours. Rain runoff brings chemical pollutants into the rivers, and from that into wildlife and flora.
Thus Robertson trying to interfere with privately owned abortion clinics is him messing in other people's business that doesn't affect him, but stopping polluting buildings or what not affects all of us, so it's not as unreasonable to take action to deal with it.
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On August 18 2007 03:52 DTDominion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2007 03:43 testpat wrote:On August 18 2007 00:42 DTDominion wrote:Pat Robertson can stop being a shit head any time now: "I ran into Pat Robertson at a pro-life conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue -- recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.
"We are now treating the Earth, specifically this country, as a killing ground," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block new abortion clinics.
"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Robertson said, "and preventing them from constructing these clinics." I mean seriously, what the hell is up with this. The people who want to build the clinics own the land, why do they have any right to stop the clinics from being built? Oh wait, fuck me I'm sorry, this story wasn't about Pat Robertson and abortion clinics. In fact: "I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue -- recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda. "We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources. "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." LinkAll you have to do is change some words and the stupidity of what Gore is actually saying becomes so much more clear. Why anyone takes him seriously I don't know, even if you do care about global warming (I don't). Focus: Setting aside actual discussion of global warming as much as possible, why do people care what Al Gore has to say? Just as an example (this hopefully won't be an abortion thread): I personally have no preference as to whether or not the law is pro-choice or pro-life. Reasonable arguments can be made for both sides. What I do think though is (a) the federal government has no place to decide whether abortion is right or wrong. For those wondering ,yes, I think Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. (b) If abortion is legal, it should be discouraged as much as possible. Whether it's a minor having to seek permission from a parent, or a woman having to get the consent of the father if possible. Abortion shouldn't be treated like it's something that can be just done on a whim. Yet, you won't see me latching on to what Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter or any of their ilk think about abortion. Even if in many ways I agree with them, they're obviously insane. Why would I want any of those types of people to be the public face of something I agree with when all they'll do is just make my argument look stupid? Which is exactly what's happening with Al Gore and global warming. The dude's obviously nuts and doesn't care about exaggerating the facts to win converts. So, bringing this back to the focus of the thread, why do people who want to see humanity take action on Global Warming allow someone like Al Gore to be in many ways the public face of their movement? I'm sorry, the reason Robertson is considered a nut, a liar, and dangerous, is not because he makes a call for civil disobedience in your fake press release. Its because that release plus pre knowledge of other things he has said lead people to think he's dangerous. Its that hearing about abortion clinics from religous leaders reminds people of fanatics who bomb and kill. This is a man who has called for the assassination of a foreign president, the bombing of the state department, and revolt against supreme court rulings. This is a man who is racist against almost everyone. This is a disgenuous man who performed faith healings in the 70s, and currently hawks diet products that allow him to leg press 2,000 pounds. How is he the public face of Christianity? If Gore had a reputation of support for people who blow up buildings, then his call for civil disobedience would take a different light. If Gore had a history of deception and lying, it would be worrying. Completely misses my point. If anything, you're making my point for me. Yes, Robertson is an idiot. Which is why the fake article, assuming it was real, would justifiably make people angry. Why doesn't what Gore's actually doing make you angry? You obviously seem to think that global warming is a very real concern. Wouldn't you want Gore to not do things that hurt the credibility of the global warming movement? Civil disobedience doesn't make you look good.
No, your point was supported by: Roberson would say this, But gore actually said it, Roberson is a nut, this proves Gore is a nut. Why would you back a nut? By your argument, Emerson should be considered a nut. Your argument is only valid if you believe the statement itself is nuts.
But I don't consider civil disobedience something to get worked up about. Civil disobedience was one of the tools used in the Civil Rights movement, and sometimes symbols are needed. When the police come and cart them away, do i think they should fight? no. Based on past things Gore has said, i'm pretty sure he would be against violent opposition to government. Based on past things Robertson has said, i'm not so sure.
I do consider "designated free speech" zones something to get worked up about. The idea that you can only express your opinions in america in a subset of america is just silly.
|
What bothers me about the global warming movement is that it's so highly politicized that it is the laughing stock of the scientific community. Certain members of the polticial community have taken it up as their shtick, using it as a poltical crutch and not knowing or caring if what they talk of doing would even be beneficial or should even be a main focus.
For instance, we always go on and on about CO2 emissions, but what about developining countries that still use CFC's? Why don't we work to establish international regulations? A single CFC molecule can have tens of thousands of times the global warming potential of CO2, and while they are used in much smaller quantities, the damage that CFC's do is in the upper atmosphere, destroying the ozone layer. We know that the earth's atmosphere has contained substantially higher CO2 levels in the past than today and while it may NOT be a good thing to increase CO2 levels, the consequences of damaging the ozone layer are more severe. And while we talk about CO2 emissions, why don't we talk about deforestation, particularly in the equatorial regions of the earth? While at the same time we increase carbon emissions, we are limiting the earth's ability to regulate atmospheric carbon. Yet we focus only on carbon emissions, ignoring the threat of deforestation. In this day and age we cannot live without massive amounts of energy, much of which is generated by oil, and the moment we start talking about nuclear energy, the same people saying we use too much carbon go throw stones at you (the radioactive byproducts of nuclear fission are actually not terribly hard to get rid of in an environmentally friendly way, only the threat of nuclear meltdown is a major deterrant that prevents this option from gaining any real support).
Another point that bothers me is that while we are gung-ho to find alternative fuel sources, there's been limited talk of the environmental consequences of the fuel sources we would choose. Nothing in this world is every won without sacrifice and energy abides by that rule the same as everything else (hell, even solar and wind energy require SOME sacrifice -- the materials needed to construct those power generators have to be mined from the earth). While ethanol has been gaining momentum as a fuel alternative, using it requires yet more increase in agriculture, taking away yet more land from mother nature and that land is then treated with fertilizers and pesticides that contaminate ground water.
Also, nobody ever seems to talk about ocean pollution. If these environmental activists are serious, then why do they ignore it? I know there are some who go out there and throw things at ships (a retarded way to solve problems... they might as well be monkies throwing fecal matter at each other), but this entire issue is avoided by the press while global warming gets all the spotlight. Have any of you been out on a deep sea fishing boat or research vessel? I have and I can say that the Atlantic seaboard of the United States is littered with toxic waste sites and unexploded bombs. These sites are marked on maps that fishing vessels and research vessels use (that way equipment doesn't cause a bomb to detonate or toxic waste to get dragged out of a drop zone). And if that's not enough, our ground water that we pollute goes... guess where? I'll give you a hint: water runs downhill. Oceanic life plays a huge enviromental role and killing this life will only serve to be our own demise.
It seems to me that the entire global warming movement is just an attempt to grandstand and the few voices of reason behind it are totally drowned out by the cocaphony of poltical banter.
Of course global warming exists and of course we should do something about it, but the entire poltical scene is a farse.
As far as changing weather conditions go, be careful not to overestimate our impact on a year-to-year basis. Global warming is a long term problem that will take centuries before it ever truly gets out of hand (that's not to say that we should wait centuries to do anything about it, but that is to say that hot summer days should be attributed to global warming -- you CANNOT feel the difference between 85 degrees F and 86 degrees F with only your body's sensory mechanisms). Sure, everyone points out years where we've had a substantial number of hurricanes, but so far this year there has been only ONE. That is an unusually low number.
Remember also that at some point in the not too distant past, Greenland was ACTUALLY GREEN (hence the name)! Global sea levels are NOT at the highest they have ever been and the earth IS believed to be undergoing a natural period of global temperature increase in addition to the environmental damage we have caused (that is not to say that there has been no damage -- even neglecting CO2 emissions entirely, we have still caused damage).
Further, we should not concern ourselves with trying to regulate global sea heights. Geological records indicate that over the past 20,000 years, global sea heights have varied by well over a 100 meters, and this variation has NOTHING to do with us.
Am I saying there are no environmental problems? Definitely not. What I am saying is that this entire global warming movement has been turned from a pertinent and respectable scientific discussion into a sham.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif)
