The Candidate's Positions

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:48 am

Sandy wrote:The cartoonist, of course, mean that to generally apply to both parties. I hear more end of the world stuff from Republicans than from Democrats.


User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK


Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:02 am

David Flick wrote:
Sandy wrote:The cartoonist, of course, mean that to generally apply to both parties. I hear more end of the world stuff from Republicans than from Democrats.




Hahahahahaha. ROFL! American Thinker? Fox NEws? CBN? Legal Insurrection? That's a list of the Grand Ole Liars Club if I ever saw one.
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/18/18683676/ ... ando-polls
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united- ... rash-if-he

here's a good one. Evangelicals are always good for some predictions in eschatology:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-will-bri ... mes-779643

The last one counts as three.

; - )
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:14 pm

Sandy wrote:The cartoonist, of course, mean that to generally apply to both parties. I hear more end of the world stuff from Republicans than from Democrats.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:50 am

David Flick wrote:Yep, you're completely oblivious to reality. Considering your allegiance to the looney fake news sources like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Newsweek, Vox, Common Dreams, etc, etc, I'm not at all surprised by your response. This discussion centers around Democratic party alarmist end-of-the world stuff, not Evangelical eschatology...


Unlike Republicans and denialists, the discussion is open among Democrats. The twelve year stuff isn't taken seriously by more than a handful of people, but if it makes you feel better to think it is a key plank in the Democratic agenda, that's fine.

As far as the news sources go, well, there's a standing challenge for those who shriek and lip flap about their being "fake news" to find real facts and prove them wrong. . I haven't seen anyone who makes this claim ever come through with anything. And I don't think I ever will.

Of course, if you don't like the news you're getting, you can always fire the pollster, er, reporter. : - )
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:44 pm

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Image
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Click on image
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Haruo » Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:38 pm

Anybody ever tell you you inhabit different, only slightly overlapping, universes? (Question aimed in this case at Sandy and David.) I have the honor, the privilege, the joy, and the aggravation of inhabiting part of the slight overlap.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12806
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:27 am

David Flick wrote:
Sandy wrote:The cartoonist, of course, mean that to generally apply to both parties. I hear more end of the world stuff from Republicans than from Democrats.




David's out-of-context snippets from politicians he abhors merely for being Democrats, does not add an iota of thought to the discussion of the candidates real positions on the issues.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:38 am

David Flick wrote:.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Image
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Click on image
.
.
.


David's cartoons do not add an iota to “reality”. All it proves is David’s extreme bias against CNN.

As for global warming (and its most obvious effect - climate change) read some evidential “reality” from NASA. Do drill down to the DATA.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:35 am

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:20 am

    KeithE wrote:David's cartoons do not add an iota to “reality”. All it proves is David’s extreme bias against CNN.
      I certainly don't deny being extremely biased against CNN because the network is an extreme example of Fake News and propaganda.
    As for global warming (and its most obvious effect - climate change) read some evidential “reality” from NASA. Do drill down to the DATA.
      David Flick wrote:When one "drills down" into the NASA Global Climate Change website DATA, she/he will find little more than huge mass of bogus data coupled with propaganda disguised as reality. For example, there's a box in the upper right hand portion of the opening page, a so-called Scientific Consensus statement:

          Scientific Consensus"
          Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

      This so-called "Scientific Concenus" has been thoroughly debunked so long (as far back as 2013) that nobody but the extreme climate change alarmists believe or accept it. Here is a list of no less than 97 articles that debunk it.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:33 am

David Flick wrote:
    KeithE wrote:David's cartoons do not add an iota to “reality”. All it proves is David’s extreme bias against CNN.
      I certainly don't deny being extremely biased against CNN because the network is an extreme example of Fake News and propaganda.
    As for global warming (and its most obvious effect - climate change) read some evidential “reality” from NASA. Do drill down to the DATA.
      David Flick wrote:When one "drills down" into the NASA Global Climate Change website DATA, she/he will find little more than huge mass of bogus data coupled with propaganda disguised as reality. For example, there's a box in the upper right hand portion of the opening page, a so-called Scientific Consensus statement:

          Scientific Consensus"
          Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

      This so-called "Scientific Concenus" has been thoroughly debunked so long (as far back as 2013) that nobody but the extreme climate change alarmists believe or accept it. Here is a list of no less than 97 articles that debunk it.


Using your own link here is what is known as DATA:

Image

The rise in measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere is alarming and must be controlled to as low as possible - some scientists believe we must get that level down to 350 ppm. Truth is the better we get it back down into the natural cyclical pattern between 180 - 300 ppm, the better.

Here’s the resulting global temperature DATA the surface AS MEASURED by thermometers spread throughout the world:
Image
which shows a temp rise of about 1.2C since 1880 and 0.7C since 1980 which is about when the UAH satellite DATA started.

and here is the UAH satellite DATA over the lower troposphere since 1979.

Image

which also shows a 0.7C temp rise over the same 1980 to today period. Note that the trend since 1970 is 0.18C/decade for ground thermometer data and slightly less than that 0.202C/decade for the UAH Satellite data - quite confirmatory. And this is from a totally different manner of measurement techniques.

Now if you want to argue to say this does not amount significant bad effects, be my guest about please read the rest of NASA link first and admit the DATA facts given above.

Here’s the DATA about the frequency of climate disasters:

Image

Climate disasters (each with 1 or more fatally or over $3M damages) have risen by a factor of 3 since 1980.
-------------

As for your 97 articles refuting the 97% consensus, opinions of experts are important but that is not scientific DATA as I use the term.

Your link amounts to 97 claims by about 20 anti-GW organizations/people. There is no doubt that there are many well organized anti-GW organizations; it is quite well funded by the fossil fuel industry and is part of the anti-scientific, right wing ideology that has swept the 40% of the country since 1980 (adopted by Trump).

The actual polls of global warming scientists is has been between 91% and 100%. The exact number does not matter. Source; each poll is referenced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

-------------------

Most global warming scientists are not “end of the world” sorts. Many are into Geoengineering to control the worst effects of Global Warming; but they realize that these measures are difficult, costly and not sure fire. Control of emissions and alternative energy will make these control measures more doable with less cost.

And by the way solar and wind energy sources are now cheaper than coal and competitive with other fossil fuels. We just need to establish efficient means of storage and distribution (and that means jobs).

David, thanks for giving me the impetus to update BL on these matters.
Last edited by KeithE on Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:42 am

David Flick wrote: Out-of-context snippits??! WOW!! Just WOW! Alexandria Ocasio Cortez made the wild claim that "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address Climate Change". Bozo O'Rourke also made the same claim. Listen to their actual words. And you say I quote them out of context?? Please enlighten me as to how those are out-of-context snippets. If you possibly can...


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Washington Times May13 wrote: “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it,” she tweeted. “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”


Well, she got the analogy comparing the Fox news audience to the intelligence of a sea sponge correct. But of course, Fox News Propaganda and Fake News Incorporated is going to jump on any piece of dialogue, take it completely out of context and use it as propaganda and try to convince their mindless audience that it is true.

Dwight from The Office? Nailed that analogy too.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:44 pm

David Flick wrote:


The AOC quote said "the world will end in 12 years and you say how should we pay for it”. That is an exaggeration on AOC’s part. Yet her whole statement is not given and the point of her argument is to say no price is too high to save our planet - the kind of exaggeration Trump uses at least every week (a bit of truth but the numbers are exaggerated). But I agree for the snippet that Tucker Carlson gave she is wrong if taken literally - no credible climate scientist is saying the world will end in 12 years. Her Green New Deal is far more reasonable sharing dire consequences in "50 or 100 years” if we stay the present course - not in 12 years. The goal is a very doable switch to clean energy by 2030 which is about 12 years away and perhaps that is what she meant - being charitable and not hearing her whole speech/debate.

The Beto quote said “scientists say that we need to take bold action within 12 years” not "that the world will end in 12 years” as Tucker Carlson said he said on his “Climate Hysteria” story. Truth is bold action has been needed for over 20 years ever since is has been evident mankind is altering the atmosphere. Beto is right to say what he said and Tucker mischaracterizes him vey badly.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:12 pm

Both Ocasio-Cortez and O'Rourke were completely taken out of context. Fox News producers must have limitless contempt for the intelligence of their audience to run crap like that and expect that they wouldn't check the source for accuracy. Even the extremist right wing Washington Times did a little research and reported the actual context of the remarks.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:58 pm

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Image
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Click on image
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:31 pm

.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Image
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Click on image
.
.
.
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:20 pm

It is correct that Beto did not say the world will end in 12 years. His full answer to the question about the Green New Deal can be found HERE. He spoke of the need to take bold action in the next 12 years. The reason to take bold action, according to O'Rourke, is to avoid a critical climate crisis "that could at its worst lead to extinction." "Not to be dramatic, but literally, the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are."

You may or may not agree with him, but it seems to me the proper fact check is this:

end of the world in 12 years = False.
"end of the world stuff" = True.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Jun 23, 2019 6:34 pm

Not Democrats, but the Green Party
Our nation – and our world – face a “perfect storm” of economic and environmental crises that threaten not only the global economy, but life on Earth as we know it. The dire, existential threats of climate change, wars for oil, and a stagnating, crisis-ridden economic system require bold and visionary solutions if we are to leave a livable world to the next generation and beyond.

These looming crises mean that the question facing us in the 2016 election is historically unique. The fate of humanity is in our hands. It is not just a question of what kind of world we want, but whether we will have a world at all.
Embrace it or not, it is "end of the world stuff."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:14 pm

Rvaughn wrote:It is correct that Beto did not say the world will end in 12 years. His full answer to the question about the Green New Deal can be found HERE. He spoke of the need to take bold action in the next 12 years. The reason to take bold action, according to O'Rourke, is to avoid a critical climate crisis "that could at its worst lead to extinction." "Not to be dramatic, but literally, the future of the world depends on us right now here where we are."

You may or may not agree with him, but it seems to me the proper fact check is this:

end of the world in 12 years = False.
"end of the world stuff" = True.


Semantics. Neither he nor Ocasio-Cortez said what they did in the literal context that Faux news reported so what David Flick claimed was a mischaracterization and out of context, which you have confirmed here.

The weight of the scientific evidence supports global warming and its consequences. The science that denies it is, for the most part, funded by commercial interests that benefit and profit from not taking steps to curb it. As far as being a political issue goes, even most Republicans recognize it as fact, or at least recognize that most voters consider it a threat.

As far as posts here go, Keith posts facts and evidence. David posts propaganda and corporate-paid "science" fiction.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:28 pm

Keith wrote:(1)The AOC quote said "the world will end in 12 years and you say how should we pay for it”. That is an exaggeration on AOC’s part. (2)Yet her whole statement is not given and the point of her argument is to say no price is too high to save our planet - the kind of exaggeration Trump uses at least every week (a bit of truth but the numbers are exaggerated). (3)But I agree for the snippet that Tucker Carlson gave she is wrong if taken literally - (4)no credible climate scientist is saying the world will end in 12 years. (5)Her Green New Deal is far more reasonable sharing dire consequences in "50 or 100 years” if we stay the present course - not in 12 years. (6)The goal is a very doable switch to clean energy by 2030 which is about 12 years away and perhaps that is what she meant - being charitable and not hearing her whole speech/debate.

    1. Most certainly AOC's quote is an exaggeration. But the last part of the quote -("...and you say how should we pay for it”)- doesn't change the meaning of what she said one iota. She said precisely what she meant. She meant precisely what she said.

    2. Have you listened to her whole statement on this point. Here's the entire statement. Like this girl doesn't have a clue what she's, like, talking about. She's, like, presenting herself as, like, an expert on, like, climate change. She's, like, completely serious. Our planet is not in danger. It hasn't been in danger for ever how many billions of years it has existed. It's certainly not in danger because of some mythical thing called Anthropogenic Climate Change. Even if it were in such danger, there's nothing, nada, zilch, that AOC, or anyone else on the planet Earth, can do to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Nor is the enough money in the entire universe to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

    3. Tucker Carlson was correct in interpreting AOC literally. AOC was speaking in literal terms. If she didn't intend for people listening to her to take her literally, she hasn't a clue about language.

    4. I completely agree with you. There are no credible scientists who believe the world will end in 12 years. Interestingly, there aren't any non-credible (alarmist/AGW) scientists who believe the world will end in 12 years. Nobody other than AOC and those parroting her believe such a thing. The AGW scientists stretch the big climate catastrophe out to 20, 30, or maybe 100 years. Shucks, the AGW pseudo-scientists have been predicting climate catastrophe for more than 30 years, beginning with the odd duck, James Hansen. He terriorized the public with his famous 1988 speech to congress. He has made so many false climate predictions it's almost impossible to keep up with them. Hansen has been giving false man-made climate predictions for over 30 years and nothing has change during those years.

    5. Ah, that marvelous Green New Deal created by Her Majesty, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. All the Greenies are as much in love with it as they are in love with her Majesty. And, if by magic, nearly every declared Democrat 2020 presidential candidate support the Green New Deal, all while leftist politicians jump on board like lemmings over a cliff. The leftist Fact Checkers clamor for attention by praising the GND, attempting to explain away the basics of the plan. One should always take the leftist fact checkers with a grain of salt...

    6.You say the goal of the Green New Deal is doable?! My Soul!! Yes I'm aware you can google all sorts of leftist sites and articles that declare it's doable. But the fact of the matter is it's virtually impossible to do. Considering the cost factor, the GND might doable if you, and every other red-blooded American, is willing to shell out between $36,100 and $65,300 every year. I don't have that kind of money. I seriously doubt you have that much either.

(1)The Beto quote said “scientists say that we need to take bold action within 12 years” not "that the world will end in 12 years” as Tucker Carlson said he said on his “Climate Hysteria” story. (2)Truth is bold action has been needed for over 20 years ever since is has been evident mankind is altering the atmosphere. Beto is right to say what he said and Tucker mischaracterizes him vey badly.

    1. Beto is a hoot. I don't think that skateboarding, table-hopping Bozo has more than 23 grey-matter cells in his noggin. He stole the "take bold action within 12 years" meme from AOC, who has only 24 grey-matter cells in her noggin. Tucker doesn't mischaracterize Bozo at all. If you want to discuss genuine hysteria, use him as a prime example being hysterical.

    2. So you say bold action has been needed for over 20 years since is has been evident mankind is altering the atmosphere? How about giving us a few examples of "bold actions" which are needed over the next 20 years? It's one thing to say that bold action is needed. It's quite another thing to list improbable actions such as squelching global CO2, which is impossible inasmuch as only 3.4% of all global CO2 is caused by human activity. Even if you successfully obliterated all of the human-caused CO2 on the planet, you would still have 96.6% of the natural global CO2 to deal with. In the first place, how are you going to boldly eliminate all 3.4% of the human-caused CO2? Secondly, what are you going to boldly do about the remaining 96.6% of natural global CO2? In reality, contrary to what the alarmist say, man-made CO2 doesn't affect climate change at all. You guys are tilting at climate windmills.

User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby David Flick » Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:50 pm

.
.
Sandy wrote:As far as posts here go, Keith posts facts and evidence. David posts propaganda and corporate-paid "science" fiction.


        Image
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8476
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Rvaughn » Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 am

Sandy wrote:Semantics.
What semantics? That neither AOC nor RFBO really believe that there is a climate crisis that must be addressed boldly or else will end by destroying the planet?
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:00 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:Semantics.
What semantics? That neither AOC nor RFBO really believe that there is a climate crisis that must be addressed boldly or else will end by destroying the planet?

I would agree that the “end of the world” is certainly overstated - planet earth will exist at least until “kingdom comes”.

But the habitat for life as we know it will be significantly degraded under “business as normal” in many areas:

Climate Change and Human Health
Temperature-Related Death and Illness
Air Quality Impacts
Extreme Events
Vector-Borne Diseases
Water-Related Illness
Food Safety, Nutrition, and Distribution
Mental Health and Well-Being
Populations of Concern

Summary of each area above, key findings and supporting evidence are given in The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health
in the United States: A Scientific Assessment
.

There are also other areas that will be affected adversely under “business as usual”. For example the oceans, sea level rise, and extinction of species.

So while the candidates may using exaggerated language, e.g. “end of the world”, I cannot blame them.

Those that wish to make light of these threats do so because they fear economic losses (or have some cynical attitude towards government in general). The truth of the matter is that the clean up from disasters involved in continuing current practices* will cost far more than transition to carbon free energy technologies (mainly developing infrastructure for storage and distribution of wind/solar/geothermal energy). It is inherently government business to organize this infrastructure development - no company will take it on themselves but plenty industries will be contracted to carry on pieces of that development.

New US report says that climate change could cost nearly $500B per year by 2090

A new report from the U.S. government on the impacts of climate change on society indicates that unless action is taken, climatological events could cost the country nearly half a trillion dollars annually by 2090.

The National Climate Assessment is a Congressionally mandated report on the impacts of climate change and was culled from the work of 300 authors in a dozen federal agencies. The 1,000-page report covers the effect of climate change on agriculture, labor, geography and health in the United States.

It’s the second volume of a report intended to give federal policymakers information on how global warming will impact the United States.

It also comes at a time when the current administration is doing everything to refute the mounting evidence coming from inside its own agencies and shirk its national and international commitments to mitigating the effects of global climate change.


Btw, congrats to those 300 government workers who performed this study despite Trump trying to ban the words “climate change” from federal agencies.

The disturbing new language of science under Trump, explained.

In addition, a shift to alternate, non-fossil-fuel energy creates more jobs. Read U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment.

*The US has already changed our practice from a coal/oil-centric approach; but more needs to be done including ending fracking (or containing methane emissions), and alternative energy infrastructure (technology of energy extraction already there and cheaper than coal but not fracking). US emissions are down.

Image

David is way off base and way behind the latest developments and shows no interests in learning from anyone other than cartoons from the right wing / fossil fuel industries.

Rvaughan, there is a chance that you are educatable
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9191
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Candidate's Positions

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:06 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Sandy wrote:Semantics.
What semantics? That neither AOC nor RFBO really believe that there is a climate crisis that must be addressed boldly or else will end by destroying the planet?


Semantics that the way David Flick characterized their remarks was, as stated, taken completely out of context. Both are concerned about it, both believe it is a crisis and have the weight of evidence on their side and both believe that there will be an ultimate end to it that will be debilitating and disastrous. The facts bear that out. If one of the major sources of oxygen production on the planet is slowly being destroyed, it stands to reason that oxygen production on the planet will also be destroyed. Then where do we get air to breathe? That's not doomsday, nut case end of the world stuff like some of the outrageous eschatology of the religious right, that's an observable fact. I'd use the analogy "you can deny that until you are blue in the face" and that would be literally true.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests