Nope, I'm suggesting that Doc saying they are building more coal plants and won't do their fair share is bullshit.

Posted by The Taint on 6/2/2017 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Nope, I'm suggesting that Doc saying they are building more coal plants and won't do their fair share is bullshit.

They're not doing their 'fair share' for the benefit of anyone but themselves. It has nothing to do with the Paris Accord, except maybe some political spin.

Heh, they are taking over as the world leader on renewable energy. Sure it's to their benefit. It's too bad our short sighted twatwaffle can't see past his own nose. It will pay off handsomely for them in the end.

As the largest polluters in the world per capita..and it's not close, it was a twatwaffle move to leave the accord.

Posted by The Taint on 6/2/2017 10:22:00 AM (view original):
Heh, they are taking over as the world leader on renewable energy. Sure it's to their benefit. It's too bad our short sighted twatwaffle can't see past his own nose. It will pay off handsomely for them in the end.

As the largest polluters in the world per capita..and it's not close, it was a twatwaffle move to leave the accord.

And after we had made such great strides in that area the last 8 years.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 6:16:00 AM (view original):
Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

No, no. We should not forget about climate change, you flat-earther. It's real and backed by real science.

Posted by moy23 on 6/2/2017 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 6/2/2017 9:39:00 AM (view original):
Nope, I'm suggesting that Doc saying they are building more coal plants and won't do their fair share is bullshit.

They're not doing their 'fair share' for the benefit of anyone but themselves. It has nothing to do with the Paris Accord, except maybe some political spin.

So moving to renewable energy sources is beneficial? Who knew?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 6:16:00 AM (view original):
Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

No, no. We should not forget about climate change, you flat-earther. It's real and backed by real science.

I misspoke.

Climate change is not bullshit. It's real.

The bullshit part is the claims that it's mostly influenced by human behavior. The "science" behind that is questionable, and ignores a ****-ton of facts that show that it's natural and cyclical, and would be occurring anyways whether or not humans existed.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 6:16:00 AM (view original):
Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

No, no. We should not forget about climate change, you flat-earther. It's real and backed by real science.

I misspoke.

Climate change is not bullshit. It's real.

The bullshit part is the claims that it's mostly influenced by human behavior. The "science" behind that is questionable, and ignores a ****-ton of facts that show that it's natural and cyclical, and would be occurring anyways whether or not humans existed.

We know it's man-made. It's backed by scientific evidence in many different fields.

"We're gonna put coal plants out of business" was a sound political strategy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/2/2017 12:14:00 PM (view original):
"We're gonna put coal plants out of business" was a sound political strategy.

Saying that was dumb, but coal has been in decline for years due to low demand. Natural gas has replaced it.

I'm not sure it was the wording as much as the implication that the "old" energy sources were going to be made obsolete by her Administration. Too many people earn their living in gas/oil/coal to make statements like that.

Regardless of that inference, coal isn't coming back no matter what anyone does. It's obsolete.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 6:16:00 AM (view original):
Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

No, no. We should not forget about climate change, you flat-earther. It's real and backed by real science.

I misspoke.

Climate change is not bullshit. It's real.

The bullshit part is the claims that it's mostly influenced by human behavior. The "science" behind that is questionable, and ignores a ****-ton of facts that show that it's natural and cyclical, and would be occurring anyways whether or not humans existed.

We know it's man-made. It's backed by scientific evidence in many different fields.

Wrong. We don't "know" it's man-made. The "scientific evidence in many different fields" is basically the product of grant-based research. One of the goals of grant-based research is to come to findings that encourages additional grant-based research.

Which of the following kinds of findings would have more potential to lead to more funding for further research:

a) Nope, nothing to see here. Everything is working as it always has.
b) OMG!!! We are destroying our planet!!! We need to do something, or we're doomed!!!!!

There is plenty of hard science that backs the idea that climate change is constant, natural, and cyclical. Yet it's ignore by the "OMG, WE'RE DOOMED!!!" people such as yourself.

Critical thought is your friend. Or at least would be, if you were capable of critical thought.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 11:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/2/2017 6:16:00 AM (view original):
Forget about climate change, global warming, all that bullshit which is backed by questionable "science" at best for the moment.

Why would we want to continue to harvest and consume fossil fuels, of which there's only so much left in the ground, and which humans are consuming at an unsustainable rate, and which is known to pollute both the water and the air when harvested and burned?

Why wouldn't we want to make a directed effort towards turning to renewable energy, such as solar and wind, which has significantly less impact on the environment when both harvested and consumed?

No, no. We should not forget about climate change, you flat-earther. It's real and backed by real science.

I misspoke.

Climate change is not bullshit. It's real.

The bullshit part is the claims that it's mostly influenced by human behavior. The "science" behind that is questionable, and ignores a ****-ton of facts that show that it's natural and cyclical, and would be occurring anyways whether or not humans existed.

We know it's man-made. It's backed by scientific evidence in many different fields.

Wrong. We don't "know" it's man-made. The "scientific evidence in many different fields" is basically the product of grant-based research. One of the goals of grant-based research is to come to findings that encourages additional grant-based research.

Which of the following kinds of findings would have more potential to lead to more funding for further research:

a) Nope, nothing to see here. Everything is working as it always has.
b) OMG!!! We are destroying our planet!!! We need to do something, or we're doomed!!!!!

There is plenty of hard science that backs the idea that climate change is constant, natural, and cyclical. Yet it's ignore by the "OMG, WE'RE DOOMED!!!" people such as yourself.

Critical thought is your friend. Or at least would be, if you were capable of critical thought.

OMFG with the bullshit "it pays to say climate change is man made" argument.

Almost all scientists say climate change is man made. If a scientist wanted to make money, the best way to do it would be to be one of the few taking money from the oil companies to deny man-made climate change. Pull your head out of your ***.

Critical thought may be my friend but clearly the two of you have never met.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/2/2017 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of that inference, coal isn't coming back no matter what anyone does. It's obsolete.

Well, the statement damn sure didn't help her campaign. She should be blaming whoever told her to say that along with misogyny, a broke DNC and whatever else she's blaming.