Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Scott Hartnell's Mane

Fox News Host Claims only "Corrupt Scientists" Believe in Climate Change

129 posts in this topic

I don't understand your first point.

Are you saying more pipelines = more emissions?

The stuff is going to come out of the ground anyways.

Pipelines produce less emissions then other transportation methods do they not?

Almost a quarter of all CO2 emissions is coming from China, with the US at 18% or so...and Europe, with all it's green initiatives is third @ 14% of the total CO2 emissions for the world.

I disagree that governments aren't doing anything - I think they are - maybe not as fast as some would like - but they're not doing nothing.

Canadian government started a process back in 2008 to "cut our greenhouse gas emissions an absolute 20% by 2020".

Back in 2010, President Barack Obama announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you believe in climate change or not, no one can argue that we don't abuse our planet. We should fix that first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you believe in climate change or not, no one can argue that we don't abuse our planet. We should fix that first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...but we can't even stop abusing each other - how are we going to stop abusing something so big as our planet?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sincerely hope this is a joke. If it is, great satire...if it isn't...WTF?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add perspective:

Ah, George ..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not a scientist. The probability is next to zero that you are one - why? Why would a scientist waste his time talking on a hockey forum?

Because he likes hockey, lol silly.

When I was a kid - I wanted to be a scientist. Had chemistry sets, telescope and the Tom Swift novels were my favourite books.

Yes, I'm a Christian, been one for over 6 years now - but it was my objectivity that led me there (see it took my 43 years to get there - but that's another story).

You say not to talk in absolutes - but you infer that because I believe in God that I can't be objective?

So...are you saying that if you are a Christian then you can't be objective nor scientific?

That sounds like an absolute to me. :)

I think you're word twisting. I said that most scientists aren't Christian, and also that you don't seem objective enough to be a scientist, so you draw your conclusions where you may, but that is far from absolute.

I'm going to be 50 this year 22yikes.gif and I haven't lived in a cave all these years.

I have read a lot, experienced a lot, and seen a lot in this world.

So please be objective and don't stereotype me just because I believe in something that you don't.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm being defensive or lashing out.

You were, but I led you there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted this a few times in other threads. I think it deserves a repost in this thread. Here is Creationist Scientist and US Congressman Paul Broun (who was on the Science Committee):

He isn't much worse than ex-chairman of the science committee Ralph Hall who said "we can't control what God controls".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted this a few times in other threads. I think it deserves a repost in this thread. Here is Creationist Scientist and US Congressman Paul Broun (who was on the Science Committee):

He isn't much worse than ex-chairman of the science committee Ralph Hall who said "we can't control what God controls".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know about the rape quote by what's his republican face, right? He wasn't being sarcastic.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap. I am so glad not to be American. Religious people are so easily manipulated as a crowd to do what ever they are told (vote) in the name of god. It's a disgusting abuse of a podium that preys on people's beliefs. He didn't say anything about what his policies are other than that they are Christian. What ever that means.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone continues to argue about the cause but spend no time talking about how we are to adapt to the situation, man-made or not, if we are going to survive other than in small pockets.

If it's a natural occurrence, check out what happened last time. Are we ready for that?

Whether it's man-made or not may be the least important issue of the two if this speeds up much at all.

Spend time arguing over social politics while the enemy is at the gates. :picard:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone continues to argue about the cause but spend no time talking about how we are to adapt to the situation, man-made or not, if we are going to survive other than in small pockets.

If it's a natural occurrence, check out what happened last time. Are we ready for that?

Whether it's man-made or not maybe the least important issue of the two if this speeds up much at all.

Spend time arguing over social politics while the enemy is at the gates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do tell me how in the world we can possibly learn how to adapt to the situation when A: The United States is BROKE, and B: 30% of the population, the voting public doesn't even acknowledge that the world is warming to begin with? On top of that, only 50% of those that DO acknowledge it are too stubborn to admit it's partially our fault? I'd love for more money to be devoted to solving this issue, unfortunately, the US government is too preoccupied with crucifying Hillary Clinton and making sure no one takes away their GUNS to give a crap about the environment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we start by raising the dialectic. The world doesn't need everyone to agree to come up with contingency plans. Personally, the US is not the be all, end all of the discussion. The stats you provide are completely US centric. Europe has some smart people too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are US centric because I live in the US and I know how big a pipe dream it would be to get Congress to go along with anything that involves doing something positive for the environment. They'd rather drill in Alaska, disturbing fragile ecosystems and displacing countless animal species than listen to anyone with any alternative energy source ideas. I'm certainly glad Europe does have smart people. We are going to need a bunch of them to balance out the lopsided ratio in this country, for sure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why the fate of the US, and the public preparedness there, would be your major concern. As a Canadian it is less important to me other than how we cope with the US's lack of preparedness. I don't have a say in the operations of your country and if the populace doesn't want to make contingency plans in the face of worldwide scientific data there isn't much we can do about it.

Mainly though, i don't look for the answers from government. I look to the ingenuity and adaptability of the human race. It's the only thing that got us through before and probably will be again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.