EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change

I just wish they'd speak up for their country when the Republocrats are fkn things up. Then I'd believe the opposition to Obama has more to do with merit and less to do with his party. Which I've kinda explained before and you just keep on missing it, jumping to some preconceived argument instead because it is easier.

Hannity typifies the mindset that irks me.

I just wanted to see that again. :hihi:

Having not read the bill and because I am not planning to read it, the strongest statement I can make is that I would probably disagree with it.

The thing is, a lot of research has been done and I don't believe it should be ignored because there weren't enough Republican scientists doing the research. Does that mean we should micromanage something that can not be effectively micromanaged? Not in my opinion. But it doesn't mean we should just ignore it or twiddle our thumbs.

You can say you violently oppose this bill without reading it. That's just the kind of guy you are. But politics is about compromise in some essence, and always sticking to your guns in opposition with no compromise will ensure that no progress is made. If half the country (or more) wants something done, insisting on doing nothing is a tenuous position. Especially when you defend your position with arguments that are barely supported by science.

BTW, you do know that one can believe that some things should be done, not just all or none. As none of us had a part in crafting this bill, nor will any of us directly vote on it, it makes more sense to talk about the subject and less sense to simply say yay or neigh.

 

you cant analyze things on thier own? you cant determine if a criticism has merit without checking back to make sure the person saying it was consistent and critical of the previous administration?

have you ever, in your entire life, read an entire bill ?

if a bill to send american jews to concentration camps came up, would you refuse a decision on that until you read all thousand pages laying out the specifics of which kinds of poison gas would be used? until you read it would you say you "probably" opposed it?

you just said nothing.

you have almost surely never read a bill in your life and i am positive you violently oppose some as well.

yeah, compromise. so if someone brought out a pro-nazi bill, we should oppose it, but maybe grant the nazis a little compromise. they can kill jews, but only at half the rate they asked for.

you should not compromise on principles that are correct.

i dont want "progress" towards big government.

i am talking about it. i am telling you it is a big government boondoggle. i am telling you it will accomplish nothing. it will punish americans and hurt the economy. it will be abused and corrupted. warren buffet calls it a huge regressive tax that we cannot afford right now. if wwill filter money to the corporations the politicians favor and crush the ordinary taxpayer.

again, lsu-i-like, you claim you oppose big intrusive government. that is not true.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's funny!...and even someone like you knows how silly that is. There are more than a few bad Republicans out there but they would have to practice for the next 10,000 years to get half as good at hypocrisy as your beloved Democrats.

Even so...I enjoyed your humor. :hihi:

 

Keep the opinions coming! Regardless of who agrees/disagrees, this is what made America great and can keep us there. When people are quiet and allow the government to rule (what Obama wants) then we can kiss this country goodbye.

 

As I said before I am not an expert on everything and appreciate the opinion of others when they have shown the ability to be fair-minded and consistent. I can come to my own opinions but it helps to have the trustworthy opinion of those with more experience than oneself. That is one reason I come here, though I sometimes have to wade through some bs.

I don't think I have.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. Of course, if >50% of the country wants to send Jews to concentration camps, it is either time to move or start a revolution. Are you keen on either?

And you said less than I.

I disagree with concepts, but I can't say I disagree with a bill without reading it.

Not quite the same thing. But again, if Jew-hating Nazis make up >50% of the country, drastic action should be taken.

As you are never wrong you are never willing to compromise. That's pretty easy.

Neither do I, and I wouldn't consider that progress. But somethings rotten and finding some remedy to that blight is necessary. Some remedy that both sides can agree on. Requires out of the box thinking, not simply beating the same drum.

You are demanding a yes or no vote and using an unwillingness to vote for the bill as your key argument in some cases.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am willing to listen to Red's argument that cap and trade has worked in other cases. I am willing to listen to the other side. You are uncompromising and would get nothing accomplished.

I am not into big federal government, but more than half the country is.

How much less damage did you think McCain would have done? I think the difference would have been small. I think McCain would be stuck with the same sagging economy and would have looked to government to fix it. His health care proposal may have been "better", but I really don't think it would have been a true step in the right direction and there are a lot of poor folks who would have hated it.

Bush's administration frustrated a lot of people and I think a lot of poor decisions were made. Now Obama is bringing a completely different mindset to the White House, and if nothing else, Republicans are feeling some of the frustration that Democrats felt during Bush's run. I am very concerned about Obama's idea about the federal government, but I think most Republican candidates felt very similar - the difference seemed incremental.

Obama didn't start that practice, but that doesn't make it right.

I can't agree that he is much better, but I hear ya.

I can understand being suspicious of the politicians pushing this legislation, but do you really think the majority of scientists are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public?

Let's throw Bush and most Republicans in and I can agree with you for the most part.

You too.

 

that is an excuse for you to be petty and call people hypocrites.

of course. i told you a million times i have no special love for america and would be happy to leave. why are you even asking that? try to stay on topic.

and you have never read a bill in your life, so you presumably have never disagreed with anything.

getting nothing accomplished is a grand success most of the time when you are talking about legislation, most of which is terrible and not necessary.

again, this statement is not true if you do not oppose the climate bill, which is about as big as anything ever.

agreed, we both favor mccain over obama.

do you bore yourself when you talk about which parties feel frustrated? who cares?

scientists are not politicians, they should have nothing to do with bills and policy.

 

I've reduced you to one-liners. I win.

I'm trying to follow the chaotic path of your conversation.

I suppose I can't say for certain how I stand on any bill that I haven't read. Being that I am not in the position to vote for or against I can afford to think more abstractly.

I don't disagree that most legislation seems pretty full of sht. But I think it is obvious we don't live in utopia right now and government could make serious improvements on the way it conducts itself.

What have I said about the climate bill? I think all I've said definitively is that I probably wouldn't vote for it.

Perhaps on some issues.

Good stuff. If I've bored you I consider it a success.

What do you mean by nothing?

 

then you are not qualified to say you are against big intrusive government.

i mean science should be removed from public policy. when scientists think they can change policy, they become politicians with agendas.

think of, for example, string theory. it has come on hard times. at one time folks thought it was a good idea, maybe a path towards merging quantum theory and regular einsteinian physics. it might be the universal theory that explains everything. but now people think it may be nonsense, supported by nothing. and thats all fine and good, i dont care, nobody does, we are not making laws about it or getting elected over it. and the scientists working on it, they were removed from political influence. you can trust their motives. they had no reason to try to convince policy makers of anything, or try to get grants that could help save humanity, or make themselves feel like heroes saving the world from polluting and bad humankind.

so with string theory, it was pure science. there were no real political implications. and that is how science should work.

climate science is the opposite. there is a "moral" and "right" side, and a mean and wrong side that is evil and hates nother earth. and politicians have to take a side and deal with the baggage, because it isnt just about science.

science, like art, should not be subject to political influence. the united nations should not be paying off scientists for research. the UN is a political body, their job is to make the world peaceful, (which they are terrible at).

and of course the other part of my theory is that we humans have a special love for stories that cast us as evil and ruining the environment. these stories are a constant through human history. humans are born guilty. look into how religions work if you dont believe me.

 

and i challenged you to take a stand on a massively important and current piece of legislation, but you wont.

you ask for a lot of explaining for a guy with no position. you take a position on the climate bill, then we will talk.