Government action to combat Global Warming harming our planet

[SuBe]

Which is that today's conservative movement, in our government, has forfeited the personal responsibility they claim they support.

But that's just me.

I'm going to agree with Jman on this one. I think Tron will agree that the majority of Republicans in Congress has taken a step back from the Conservative Base that got them elected in the first place. Be it on Spending, or the Enviromental "Crisis", or pandering. They have swayed too far from those values we hold dear. That's why I am a Neo-Lib Conservative, not a New Breed Republican that might as well be yesterday's Democrat.

 

[The Senator]

Flame other posters? How many times have you seen me back up my positions on various issues with news articles, graphs, and other sources? How often have you seen me have a discussion WITH YOU that involved nothing personal or derogatory about you? You're just making accusations about me because I called BS on you and you had to wiggle your way out of it.

I've grown weary of this dance. Let's just end it.

I would like to go back to my original post, where I responded to something Sparkle said.

Never mentioned any movement, person, or people. Just a belief.

Then, you accused me of generalizing.

To which I replied by saying, explicitly, that the Republicans in control of our government share these beliefs.

To which you replied, accusing me of being a bigot, not caring for these "feeling" politicians who have spewed hate speech from the floor of the House and Senate.

To which I replied, where I listed my concerns. And instead of addressing my concerns, you said that I have an irrational hatred for all Republicans.

I don't hate Republicans. And I said it flat out from the beginning that I opposed the Republicans in control of our government.

I don't see how you got "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick" out of that.

I know what I've meant all along, and that's what matters. If I didn't originally mean that, I would have admitted my error. I have in the past. But, hey, believe what you want, and let's call your BS calls of BS over and done with.

 

[Tron5000]

I would like to go back to my original post, where I responded to something Sparkle said.

Never mentioned any movement, person, or people. Just a belief.

Then, you accused me of generalizing.

To which I replied by saying, explicitly, that the Republicans in control of our government share these beliefs.

To which you replied, accusing me of being a bigot, not caring for these "feeling" politicians who have spewed hate speech from the floor of the House and Senate.

To which I replied, where I listed my concerns. And instead of addressing my concerns, you said that I have an irrational hatred for all Republicans.

I don't hate Republicans. And I said it flat out from the beginning that I opposed the Republicans in control of our government.

I don't see how you got "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick" out of that.

I know what I've meant all along, and that's what matters. If I didn't originally mean that, I would have admitted my error. I have in the past. But, hey, believe what you want, and let's call your BS calls of BS over and done with.

I never said, "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick." I did, however, refer to the actual statement you made.

See that? I quote you and respond to it. You make up things (like "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick") in an effort to advance your argument.

As I said, credibility = 0. If you want to continue this dialogue, feel free. I'm offering you a chance to put it to bed

 

[The Senator]

I never said, "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick." I did, however, refer to the actual statement you made.

See that? I quote you and respond to it. You make up things (like "He hates all Republicans! He's a generalizing prick") in an effort to advance your argument.

As I said, credibility = 0. If you want to continue this dialogue, feel free. I'm offering you a chance to put it to bed

Obviously you never said those words directly. Hence the hyperbole and the use of the exclamation point, which I usually only use in hyperbolic situations

 

[The Senator]

Anyway, I say we put an official end to this bull **** argument about nothing, and get back to the actual topic at hand, whatever it was.

 

[Tron5000]

Anyway, I say we put an official end to this bull **** argument about nothing, and get back to the actual topic at hand, whatever it was.

Agreed. Olive branch officially offered.

 

[Carcharodon]

There's so much spin in that article that I'm having trouble knowing where to start deconstructing it. The article is clearly aimed at an audience with a limited knowledge of natural carbon cycling (or science in general), and while most of his facts are straight, they're put into an amazingly misleading context. It's actually quite impressive, if not simultaneously pathetic.

Plants require oxygen just as much as they require carbon dioxide, so more CO2 isn't necessarily the answer. There's a physiological balance involved here that goes beyond HEAT + CARBON = GOOD. As for the temperature argument, there's a limit to the tolerance of plants. If plants are exposed to high-heat or high-oxygen conditions (a condition that the article apprently advocates for), they undergo a physiological process called photorespiration...a highly inefficient mechanism that supplements photosynthesis. The plants will be placed under extreme environmental and physiological stress, inhibiting their ability to fix carbon overall.

That's high school biology.

If you guys need a bigger logical flaw pointed out, I don't think I could provide it. I don't think it even exists. This article is trash...sorry.

FOR THE RECORD: For everybody making comparisons between Memphis Slim and Tron5000, or calling him a right-wing nut: I've had many great conversations with Tron over the issue of climate change, and I don't think he's quite deserving of the derision he's received in this thread. It never really hurts to at least hear him out.

 

[Tron5000]

There's so much spin in that article that I'm having trouble knowing where to start deconstructing it. The article is clearly aimed at an audience with a limited knowledge of natural carbon cycling (or science in general), and while most of his facts are straight, they're put into an amazingly misleading context. It's actually quite impressive, if not simultaneously pathetic.

Plants require oxygen just as much as they require carbon dioxide, so more CO2 isn't necessarily the answer. There's a physiological balance involved here that goes beyond HEAT + CARBON = GOOD. As for the temperature argument, there's a limit to the tolerance of plants. If plants are exposed to high-heat or high-oxygen conditions (a condition that the article apprently advocates for), they undergo a physiological process called photorespiration...a highly inefficient mechanism that supplements photosynthesis. The plants will be placed under extreme environmental and physiological stress, inhibiting their ability to fix carbon overall.

That's high school biology.

If you guys need a bigger logical flaw pointed out, I don't think I could provide it. I don't think it even exists. This article is trash...sorry.

FOR THE RECORD: For everybody making comparisons between Memphis Slim and Tron5000, or calling him a right-wing nut: I've had many great conversations with Tron over the issue of climate change, and I don't think he's quite deserving of the derision he's received in this thread. It never really hurts to at least hear him out.

Thank you for that, kind sir. We have had our disagreements in the past, but they were usually derived through honest means and I believe we have left most disagreements amicably. Much respect to you, my friend.