Or, as a pastor I met said: "Remember that God is *not* a Republican. The devil, however, is *definitely* a Democrat."
Or, as a pastor I met said: "Remember that God is *not* a Republican. The devil, however, is *definitely* a Democrat."
That pastor is a fool and a partisan hack.The left has been wrong about every single environmental prediction they have ever raised.
It's fair to say that the political right is not always right, but it's also fair to say that the political left is basically always wrong.
Sometimes independents are right and Republicans wrong. If there's been a case in the last thirty years where the Democrats have been right on an issue...
Well, they were almost right that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, except then the congressional Democrats all demanded a second vote on the issue so that most (I don't think it was all) could vote for the war, after they'd voted against it.
To sum up a response here, the right doesn't have a monopoly on facts or truth, but the left has a functional monopoly on being wrong about literally everything.
Or, as a pastor I met said: "Remember that God is *not* a Republican. The devil, however, is *definitely* a Democrat."
That pastor is a fool and a partisan hack.
Also, the Left have not been wrong on every single environmental issue.
That is more cope the Right tells itself so it doesn't have to address issues. The Left can be overzealous or overwrought on some environmental issues, but the Rights response of basically ignoring all environmental things till Trump came along has definitely contributed why the incorrect public image of the Right as corpo lackeys who only care about Big Oil.
I have tried repeatedly, with multiple kinds of links and evidence, to bridge the gap; no one here wants to hear it most of the time.
I'm not doing this again, not when no matter what links I put up, most of you will not accept them as legit until shit's already fucked and it's too late to do anything about it.
No, I just do not have access to the academic databases where I learned shit and could give non-media based, actual scientific journal articles to work from.If your links actually supported your position, you might have a point here.
But you just refuse to recognize that conjecture is not the same as facts.
No, I just do not have access to the academic databases where I learned shit and could give non-media based, actual scientific journal articles to work from.
I cannot condense years of environmental and scientific education into a neat post here, I could barely fit it into a several day long TEDTalk if went that route, and that would not mean much without people having the parts I've seen in said databases in thier own hands.
Jerry Saltz, New York Times SENIOR 'Art Critic' wants to you share in how disgusted he is with White people getting guns for Christmas.
Do you have any idea how much a JSTOR account costs? The only reason I could even see into them is because the college I was at had accounts for students to use for research projects....So your argument is 'Trust me, I did the research, but I can't show it to you.'
And you're surprised that people who've dealt with decades of proven lies on the subject don't accept that argument?
I'm not trying to pull a Zachowan with his 'its classified, you have to trust me' shit; I have tried to link to things in good faith using what sources I can find that aren't paywalled behind JSTOR or the like, and no one gives them any credit.
No, I just do not have access to the academic databases where I learned shit and could give non-media based, actual scientific journal articles to work from.
I cannot condense years of environmental and scientific education into a neat post here, I could barely fit it into a several day long TEDTalk if went that route, and that would not mean much without people having the parts I've seen in said databases in thier own hands.
Guess what, environmental science rarely comes with the certainties you are demanding for 'credibility', even in academic papers. Environmental science is always evolving, always refining itself, and they only use the certainity you want is when shit has already happened.Yes, and we don't give them credit as supporting your argument because the 'it could mean' and 'possible effect' lines are within the articles you linked.
You're not the only one who's done research over the years, and your claims fit exactly the pattern of the long litany of disproven leftist alarmism. You're going to need to present a very clear, strong case to overcome that, and articles that are clearly written to support the leftist alarmism narrative, while carefully using language that retains plausible deniability for those who write it, are not going to provide that clear, strong case.
It is not all alarmism, that is Right wing cope used to not address things and dismiss even examinimg issues to see what solutions can be found.Here's yet another example of a problem with Climate Alarmism, in particular
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘bes…polarbearscience.com
Is a fact inconvenient? Ignore it and bury anyone who tries to bring it up.
Is a fact potentially inconvenient? Ignore it and never ever ever do any (official)research into it ever.
And this has been a thing since the start. Just like the fact that we had Nuclear as an option before Climate Alarmism became a thing and regardless, it's never been brought up as a serious option even just to help transition over to renewables.
Climate Alarmists never seem to have actual, practical solutions, just things that make life worse for the poor and empower the government.
Let's see, supported the EPA Clean Air and Water Acts, supported expanding National Parks, expanding the Endangered Species Act, pushed for bans on damaging off-shore waste dumping, kept oil drilling out of ANWAR, pushed for an end to atmospheric nuke testing, grilled the CCP about the whole 'shark fin soup'/shark overfishing issue, dealt with the hole in the ozone layer via banning CFCs in r fridgerants and that's just off the top of my head.So what has the left done to help environmental stuff?
And we are still on coal, and they've never even tried to push for Nuclear.Let's see, supported the EPA Clean Air and Water Acts, supported expanding National Parks, expanding the Endangered Species Act, pushed for bans on damaging off-shore waste dumping, kept oil drilling out of ANWAR, pushed for an end to atmospheric nuke testing, grilled the CCP about the whole 'shark fin soup'/shark overfishing issue, dealt with the hole in the ozone layer via banning CFCs in r fridgerants and that's just off the top of my head.
And how many of those had bipartisan support? Or in the case of oil drilling in Anwar were a huge mistake?Let's see, supported the EPA Clean Air and Water Acts, supported expanding National Parks, expanding the Endangered Species Act, pushed for bans on damaging off-shore waste dumping, kept oil drilling out of ANWAR, pushed for an end to atmospheric nuke testing, grilled the CCP about the whole 'shark fin soup'/shark overfishing issue, dealt with the hole in the ozone layer via banning CFCs in r fridgerants and that's just off the top of my head.