I didn't learn my science at school. Mostly.Shocking wrote:
They're not really teaching these kids science or reason tbh.Spark wrote:
Little kids tbh. What I fear is the potential of a backlash response driving them against science in general. That'll kill Western pre-eminence as surely as anything else we might envisage.Shocking wrote:
The future is going to be fun because the kids going to primary school right now are taught about 'the evils of global warming' and its 'ultimate solution' being windmills and solar panels. They label the next generation as being "environmentally conscious" (read; indoctrinated in a religion-esque fashion).
I had a 9 year old tell me that man is evil because we are 'destroying the planet'.
Neither did I.. anyway, in this case they're not even trying. The concept of global warming shouldn't even be taught at primary school because there's no way little children can understand the complexity of it all or could actually reason with the idea.Spark wrote:
I didn't learn my science at school. Mostly.Shocking wrote:
They're not really teaching these kids science or reason tbh.Spark wrote:
Little kids tbh. What I fear is the potential of a backlash response driving them against science in general. That'll kill Western pre-eminence as surely as anything else we might envisage.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-22 22:47:18)
What's enlightening is the fact that he does not understand separation of church and State. Where is the science in creationism? He's implying creationism is an alternative to evolution as a "theory". Luckily he's entirely wrong when saying Texas actually teaches Creationism in school. Although the mistake may be common, Perry should know better.FEOS wrote:
That article is not at all enlightening, if you've listened to what he's said. He's said that state and local governments are best postured to most effectively spend federal funding, rather than taking a peanut butter approach nation-wide. That's exactly what's portrayed in the article. He never said the federal government should go away.
Texas can thank itself that the Governor has little to no power compared to other states.Ty wrote:
This is the same Rick Perry who suggested that Texas should succeed from the US after Obama became President right? The same Rick Perry who appointed a creationist to head the Texas Board of Education? The same Rick Perry who rented out a football stadium for, and I quote "a Christian prayer service to provide spiritual solutions to the many challenges we face as a nation"... that's the Rick Perry we're talking about?
Yeah. Sounds like a real go getter. A potential President who would abandon the US and if he came into trouble would call on Jesus to make all his policy.
Where do you dig up these people?
The main source of the relative weakness of the Texas Governor can be found in the historical conditions surrounding the Texas Constitution of 1876. Mindful of the experience of Reconstruction - the period after the Civil War when Republican governors wielded extensive executive powers and were resisted by conservative elites in the state - the authors of the new constitution sought to rein in future governors. They did so by dispersing power that might otherwise be lodged in the chief executive's hands among a vast array of independently elected officials. Broad powers over the legal system, state budget and finances, education, transportation, agriculture, public utilities, and land development are delegated to officials who need not share the policies nor even be of the same political party as the governor.
Did you even read his posts? Christ. Tell me where he's arguing that polluting the rivers is a good idea. What he's stating is that he doesn't agree with the 'green agenda' which centers almost exclusively around energy production and consumption.AussieReaper wrote:
You don't think that by denying climate change, that they would be making those inevitable conditions worse?
Disbanding the EPA isn't a great idea when your rivers become filled with pollutants for the sake of "well we'll just adapt" or the air pollution causes acid rain but "hey the economy is doing well".
I'd rather side with the group that accepts the science and tries to fix it than the group that shove their heads into the sand while at the same time pissing into the sandpit.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-22 23:12:04)
If the left are somehow the agenda pushing wealth distributors, I'm putting forward the view that it's the right which want to do nothing but deny anything is happening and as I said, I would rather side with the left at the end of the day between the two.Shocking wrote:
Did you even read his posts? jesus christ, tell me where he's arguing that polluting the rivers is a good idea. What he's stating is that he doesn't agree with the 'green agenda' which centers almost exclusively around energy production and consumption.AussieReaper wrote:
You don't think that by denying climate change, that they would be making those inevitable conditions worse?
Disbanding the EPA isn't a great idea when your rivers become filled with pollutants for the sake of "well we'll just adapt" or the air pollution causes acid rain but "hey the economy is doing well".
I'd rather side with the group that accepts the science and tries to fix it than the group that shove their heads into the sand while at the same time pissing into the sandpit.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-08-22 23:16:04)
That's because the arguments are ridiculous. The absolute worst we could do is kill ourselves, the planet and life itself are in no danger whatsoever, they have endured far greater threats (and survived) than ~2 C of warming in a century worth of time. As Jay stated this isn't about the planet it's about trying to sustain (or create) a habitat which the activists enjoy.AussieReaper wrote:
If the left are somehow the agenda pushing wealth distributors, I'm putting forward the view that it's the right which want to do nothing but deny anything is happening and as I said, I would rather side with the left at the end of the day between the two.Shocking wrote:
Did you even read his posts? jesus christ, tell me where he's arguing that polluting the rivers is a good idea. What he's stating is that he doesn't agree with the 'green agenda' which centers almost exclusively around energy production and consumption.AussieReaper wrote:
You don't think that by denying climate change, that they would be making those inevitable conditions worse?
Disbanding the EPA isn't a great idea when your rivers become filled with pollutants for the sake of "well we'll just adapt" or the air pollution causes acid rain but "hey the economy is doing well".
I'd rather side with the group that accepts the science and tries to fix it than the group that shove their heads into the sand while at the same time pissing into the sandpit.
Jay said he believes in climate change, so I find it odd he'd believe doing nothing is a great idea. Hence my post. I didn't think it had to be explicitly stated that most of the Republicans don't believe in climate change, does it?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-22 23:20:56)
Even as an environmental front it was horribly wrong... the "green movement" never really seemed to be interested in researching warming or offering up viable solutions. It was out to portray all conventional ways of energy production, consumption etc as "evil" and their way as "good" from the get-go.Cybargs wrote:
the green movement has turned from an environmental front to an anti-capitalism front.
Last edited by Shocking (2011-08-22 23:26:03)
Does it matter what any politician says on the campaign trail?FEOS wrote:
That article is not at all enlightening, if you've listened to what he's said. He's said that state and local governments are best postured to most effectively spend federal funding, rather than taking a peanut butter approach nation-wide. That's exactly what's portrayed in the article. He never said the federal government should go away.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-23 02:15:15)
Welcome to the bible belt. Hell I thought most people in Texas was more liberal (especially in major cities).Ty wrote:
My problem with him is that he clearly does not understand the concept of secularism. That should automatically disqualify him from any political office.
The EPA is a particularly sensitive topic in TX right now. In San Antonio, we've met EPA clean air standards year after year. So what do they do? They raise the standard to a level where an ozone sensor placed in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be able to pass...forcing expensive inspections and other regulation, despite our area meeting or exceeding EPA clean air standards every year.AussieReaper wrote:
I can't believe the attacks the Republicans are throwing towards the EPA. Rick Perry has described it as an organization bent on "job-killing over-regulation".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I trust that some scientists do exaggerate figures on the human impact of global warming for money. That doesn't mean that I completely discount human impact on the environment, or that I'd want a president to wave his arm and give heavy industry the go-ahead to build hazardous, unclean facilities, billow toxins into our atmosphere and pour mercury into our rivers.
I don't see why scientists being right, wrong or lying about global warming should affect anyone's desire to, where possible, drive cleaner automobiles.
Like clean water should be second place because you can save money by dumping chemicals into drain water.
And what does this have to do with running a government? It's .01% of the job, and there are enough other things in place to prevent it from running everything else. It's really a non-issue, tempest in a teapot sort of deal. He does understand separation of church and state, completely. He's been governor here the entire time I've lived in this state (01-05 and 09-present). Not once has religion come into play from Austin concerning governance.Kmar wrote:
What's enlightening is the fact that he does not understand separation of church and State. Where is the science in creationism? He's implying creationism is an alternative to evolution as a "theory". Luckily he's entirely wrong when saying Texas actually teaches Creationism in school. Although the mistake may be common, Perry should know better.FEOS wrote:
That article is not at all enlightening, if you've listened to what he's said. He's said that state and local governments are best postured to most effectively spend federal funding, rather than taking a peanut butter approach nation-wide. That's exactly what's portrayed in the article. He never said the federal government should go away.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/23/clima … ectness-inCase Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler has a sharp analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy of what might be called Republican "Climate Change Derangement Syndrome." A recent outbreak occurred when Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed a bill that would have overturned his decision to withdraw from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme adopted by several northeastern states. That's the right policy call. But then, as Adler explains:Adler concludes:The problem, according to some conservatives, is that Christie accompanied his veto with a statement acknowledging that human activity is contributing to global climate change. Specifically, Christie explained that his original decision to withdraw from RGGI was not based upon any “quarrel” with the science.
While I acknowledge that the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing, that climate change is real, that human activity plays a role in these changes and that these changes are impacting our state, I simply disagree that RGGI is an effective mechanism for addressing global warming.
As Christie explained, RGGI is based upon faulty economic assumptions and “does nothing more than impose a tax on electricity” for no real environmental benefit. As he noted, “To be effective, greenhouse gas emissions must be addressed on a national and international scale.”
Although Christie adopted the desired policy — withdrawing from RGGI — some conservatives are aghast that he would acknowledge a human contribution to global warming. According to one, this makes Christie “Part RINO. Part man. Only more RINO than man.” [“RINO” as in “Republican in Name Only.”]
Those attacking Christie are suggesting there is only one politically acceptable position on climate science — that one’s ideological bona fides are to be determined by one’s scientific beliefs, and not simply one’s policy preferences. This is a problem on multiple levels. Among other things, it leads conservatives to embrace an anti-scientific know-nothingism whereby scientific claims are to be evaluated not by scientific evidence but their political implications. Thus climate science must be attacked because it provides a too ready justification for government regulation. This is the same reason some conservatives attack evolution — they fear it undermines religious belief — and it is just as wrong.
Writing at MichelleMalkin.com, Doug Powers warns that ” if some politicians think they can swim in the waters of AGW without getting wet or soaking taxpayers, they should think again.” In other words, once you accept that human activity may be contributing to global warming, embracing costly and ill-advised regulatory measures is inevitable. Yet it is actually Powers, not Christie, who is embracing a dangerous premise. As Christie’s veto shows, he understands that the threat of climate change does not justify any and all proposed policy responses. One can believe the threat is real, and still think cap-and-trade is a bad idea. Christie’s critics, on the other hand, seem to accept that once it can be shown that human activity may be having potentially negative environmental effects, this alone justifies government intervention. Yet the environmental effects of human behavior are ubiquitous. Human civilization necessarily entails remaking the world around it. So if recognizing negative environmental effects leads inevitably to governmental intervention, there is virtually no end to what government needs to do, global warming or no.I agree.As I’ve written before, it would be convenient if human activity did not contribute to global warming or otherwise create problems that are difficult to reconcile with libertarian preferences. But that’s not the world we live in, and politicians should not be criticized for recognizing that fact. Further, even if one accepts the “skeptic” perspective on climate change, there are still reasons to believe climate change is a problem, as I explain here. This does not require endorsing massive regulatory interventions or cap-and-trade schemes; there are alternatives. In the end, politicians should be evaluated on their policy proposals — and commended for the courage to acknowledge politically inconvenient truths.
Well, those ultra conservatives are anti-science because people like AR like to use evolution as a club to attack their religious beliefs It's part of the backlash.Shocking wrote:
He makes sense and for that some of the ultra conservative repubs ostracize him....
Because you have to be multiple forms of crazy to be a politician;FatherTed wrote:
why are politicians never normal people
He's playing the Bush link well enough that the far right will have to accept him,Shocking wrote:
He makes sense and for that some of the ultra conservative repubs ostracize him....
I agree to some extent. The EPA, like any other bureaucracy, continually searches for more excuses to exist at the expense of those it monitors. Excessive punitive legislation should be curbed, but I wouldn't want to see the EPA disbanded.FEOS wrote:
The EPA is a particularly sensitive topic in TX right now. In San Antonio, we've met EPA clean air standards year after year. So what do they do? They raise the standard to a level where an ozone sensor placed in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be able to pass...forcing expensive inspections and other regulation, despite our area meeting or exceeding EPA clean air standards every year.AussieReaper wrote:
I can't believe the attacks the Republicans are throwing towards the EPA. Rick Perry has described it as an organization bent on "job-killing over-regulation".unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I trust that some scientists do exaggerate figures on the human impact of global warming for money. That doesn't mean that I completely discount human impact on the environment, or that I'd want a president to wave his arm and give heavy industry the go-ahead to build hazardous, unclean facilities, billow toxins into our atmosphere and pour mercury into our rivers.
I don't see why scientists being right, wrong or lying about global warming should affect anyone's desire to, where possible, drive cleaner automobiles.
Like clean water should be second place because you can save money by dumping chemicals into drain water.
Explicit pandering to group of people at the expense of constitutional law has a lot do with running our government. It's called character.FEOS wrote:
And what does this have to do with running a government? It's .01% of the job, and there are enough other things in place to prevent it from running everything else. It's really a non-issue, tempest in a teapot sort of deal. He does understand separation of church and state, completely. He's been governor here the entire time I've lived in this state (01-05 and 09-present). Not once has religion come into play from Austin concerning governance.Kmar wrote:
What's enlightening is the fact that he does not understand separation of church and State. Where is the science in creationism? He's implying creationism is an alternative to evolution as a "theory". Luckily he's entirely wrong when saying Texas actually teaches Creationism in school. Although the mistake may be common, Perry should know better.FEOS wrote:
That article is not at all enlightening, if you've listened to what he's said. He's said that state and local governments are best postured to most effectively spend federal funding, rather than taking a peanut butter approach nation-wide. That's exactly what's portrayed in the article. He never said the federal government should go away.
Hasn't really impacted any major decisions within Texas. Aka, usually the crap that bible beaters wanted, they got - like the majority.Ty wrote:
My problem with him is that he clearly does not understand the concept of secularism. That should automatically disqualify him from any political office.
