
This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know. I am also curious to know how they speak of countries that have expanded clean energy use without seeing a reduction in jobs, or do those countries not exist?Strong Eagle wrote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/ ... AC20151026JR8 wrote: ...
Thank your politicians for throwing the US outnakatago wrote:I'm getting tired of the hypocrisy and double standards of China. They're just throwing their weight around now.
Likewise, Russia can claim Alaska, India can claim Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Philippines can claim Sabah (Oh, there are people in PH who are claiming Sabah - even went to war recently over Sabah)mayrolllate wrote:I wish I could claim territory using an old map with dotted lines
Erap did it.ecureilx wrote:Thank your politicians for throwing the US outnakatago wrote:I'm getting tired of the hypocrisy and double standards of China. They're just throwing their weight around now.
Everything in South China Seamayrolllate wrote:US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 after Russia offered $7m (google Alaskan Purchase). I wonder what China would offer to sell "its" islands in the South China Sea for. More importantly, how many territorial disputes does China have ongoing now?
Add, Arunachal Pradesh ( sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly .. ) claiming the citizens there have Chinese DNA ...nakatago wrote:Everything in South China Seamayrolllate wrote:US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 after Russia offered $7m (google Alaskan Purchase). I wonder what China would offer to sell "its" islands in the South China Sea for. More importantly, how many territorial disputes does China have ongoing now?
Kashmir
Tibet
Taiwan
Those islands just off of Japan
The Arctic as well, apparently
You cloud the issue by referring to it is 'global warming'. Well I don't think anyone disputes that the world goes through warming and cooling cycles. The Romans grew vines and produced wines as far north as Scotland in the 1st-4th centuries AD. And despite seismic advances in viticulture including GM you can't grow vines that far north today.mayrolllate wrote:This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know.
To expect absolute proof of something this significant is ludicrous.JR8 wrote:You cloud the issue by referring to it is 'global warming'. Well I don't think anyone disputes that the world goes through warming and cooling cycles. The Romans grew vines and produced wines as far north as Scotland in the 1st-4th centuries AD. And despite seismic advances in viticulture including GM you can't grow vines that far north today.mayrolllate wrote:This quote is referring to hallmark behavior of the Republican party (I do not to use the word extreme because many republicans do not believe in global warming or in evolution). The republicans justify their anti-global warming rhetoric by claiming it isn't scientifically proven and even if it were, that it would kill jobs. I haven't heard what standard of proof they seek before they will accept it as scientifically proven, so if anyone has, that would be helpful to know.
So the question is not is the world is warming or cooling, as it will be doing one or the other at any point in time; it always has. But rather is there proof that man is causing it i.e. 'AGW' = anthropogenic global warming. And on that there isn't proof, and per the 'scientific method' that means the answer is 'it's not'. So IMO you'd have to think illogically, and/or have a vested interest to suggest it is otherwise.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests