Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:It would help if people on the left end of the political divide did not start from the position that anyone who disagrees with them is either evil, ignorant or foolish.
I was not won over by name calling and attempts to shame me, I was won over by the massive Arctic sea ice loss of 2007. IOW real world observation, not loaded rhetoric and accusations by our left leaning membership.
You need to make allies to win the climate debate. To win allies you treat people as future friends, not current enemies, no matter what differences they may have from yourself in other political positions.
The ideas of the first two, Marx and Freud, would seem to have been unpersuasive from the first. Unworthy of the attention of folks who were, well, paying attention. As important as economics are, humans are motivated by many more things than their material condition, contrary to what Marx tried to teach us. He’s discredited now almost everywhere save university faculty lounges, always the last places to get the memo.
Freud, from the comfort of his middle-class psychiatric practice in Vienna, gave us penis envy, the Oedipus complex, and other equally risible phantasms. First hearing of these matters in university lectures as a freshman, I kept waiting for the punch line which never arrived. It finally sank in on me that sentient and otherwise coherent adults were taking this nonsense seriously. (Confirming once again that he who laughs last didn’t get the joke.)
Of the three men, only Darwin’s ideas had a bit of surface plausibility about them at the beginning. But only a bit. Darwinism, which many with the show call science but has no experimental basis and is dealt with now like religious dogma, can be stated economically, to wit: A series of small, random, mutations with survival value brought us, in four and a half billion years, from the single-cell bacterium in slime to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Not a chance in the world.
KaiserJeep wrote:...... If you actually believe in the theory, you would demonstrate such a belief with your lifestyle, which would be rural, agrarian, and sustainable. You would not own any vehicle with a fuel tank, use any electricity from the power grid, or consume any but locally sourced foodstuffs.
Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.
Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.
Newfie wrote:Cog wrote:So what is the solution? I do believe that humans are causing climate change, at least to some extent. I'm a Republican conservative in political thought. If you tell me that I have to wipe out 9/10th of the human population to save the world, I'm going to say " Come up with a different plan". If you tell me that is the only plan that will work, then I will tell you to forget about it.
That about sums it up. No plan, no action, no change. It seems inevitable that we can't engineer a soft landing, so a hard landing will inevitably ensue, killing 9/10 of the population.
I don't like your position. Yet I have nothing better to offer. Wanna beer?
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 285 guests