Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Ted Cruz on The Paris Climate Pact rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/29/opinions/withdraw-paris-accord...

Sad to see that his whole line of reasoning stems from purely economic reasons. Although those should obviously be considered, he does not seem to be the least bit concerned about the results of global warming on this planet. In my opinion, a shortsighted view. No one ever implied there would not be a bit of pain endured to reach the proper goal. But man created this situation, and only man can resolve it. The longer we wait, the more pain we will eventually have to suffer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's VERY Republican to sell out the longterm for the shortterm.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edgar the Woebringer
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
mb
Not sure I see the problem. After all, none of us buy insurance until it's been proven that we'll have an accident or health issue.

I hate that these people have taken over the use of the word "conservative." They are anything but.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Shelburne
Vermont
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

Ferret


Does that mean having "savings" is no longer a convincing reason?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dickie Crickets
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
It's VERY Republican to sell out the longterm for the shortterm.


This has always puzzled me. They don't give a fuck about polar bear. Not really surprising. Out of sight, out of mind, just some stupid bears to them.

But these people have kids, right? Grandchildren? They don't care at all about passing down a habitable, safe planet to them? Even your garden-variety asshole can usually be made to give a shit about something once they or their loved ones are going to be among the effected.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

Ferret


Does that mean having "savings" is no longer a convincing reason?


Sorry, don't understand....I have many savings, but that's probably not what you're trying to say/imply?


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
eaglebeak wrote:
windsagio wrote:
It's VERY Republican to sell out the longterm for the shortterm.


This has always puzzled me. They don't give a fuck about polar bear. Not really surprising. Out of sight, out of mind, just some stupid bears to them.

But these people have kids, right? Grandchildren? They don't care at all about passing down a habitable, safe planet to them? Even your garden-variety asshole can usually be made to give a shit about something once they or their loved ones are going to be among the effected.


There were approximately 15,000 polar bears in 1960. There are only an estimated 30,000 left:

https://polarbearscience.com/2015/05/31/global-polar-bear-po...


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Shelburne
Vermont
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

Ferret


Does that mean having "savings" is no longer a convincing reason?


Sorry, don't understand....I have many savings, but that's probably not what you're trying to say/imply?


Ferret

"Savings" as in not burning away the finite natural resources we have been endowed with. Or: Not consuming today that we can consume tomorrow.

Natural resources are actual real savings, unlike monetary savings which net to zero in a society anyway when looking at the other side of the ledger. (monetary savings = monetary debt)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can't have conservatives actually want to conserve stuff. Or understand that the way we treat natural resources is just one giant pyramid scheme. You'd think the guys who are so squarely against government deficits and fiat currency would understand that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Rice
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Blah Blah Blah
badge
I didn't know what else to do with the GG
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
eaglebeak wrote:
windsagio wrote:
It's VERY Republican to sell out the longterm for the shortterm.


This has always puzzled me. They don't give a fuck about polar bear. Not really surprising. Out of sight, out of mind, just some stupid bears to them.

But these people have kids, right? Grandchildren? They don't care at all about passing down a habitable, safe planet to them? Even your garden-variety asshole can usually be made to give a shit about something once they or their loved ones are going to be among the effected.


There were approximately 15,000 polar bears in 1960. There are only an estimated 30,000 left:

https://polarbearscience.com/2015/05/31/global-polar-bear-po...


Ferret


This Susan Crockford seems to be pretty bias in her views, got anything a little more.....you know, with a little more science in it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mirth123 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
eaglebeak wrote:
windsagio wrote:
It's VERY Republican to sell out the longterm for the shortterm.


This has always puzzled me. They don't give a fuck about polar bear. Not really surprising. Out of sight, out of mind, just some stupid bears to them.

But these people have kids, right? Grandchildren? They don't care at all about passing down a habitable, safe planet to them? Even your garden-variety asshole can usually be made to give a shit about something once they or their loved ones are going to be among the effected.


There were approximately 15,000 polar bears in 1960. There are only an estimated 30,000 left:

https://polarbearscience.com/2015/05/31/global-polar-bear-po...


Ferret


This Susan Crockford seems to be pretty bias in her views, got anything a little more.....you know, with a little more science in it?


A little more science and a lot less paid for bias is definitely in order

Quote:
But Crockford may not be the most reliable source -- she has been working to attack the scientific consensus for years, once signing onto a document "rebuk[ing]" President Obama for accepting manmade global warming. A 2012 document from the climate "skeptic" Heartland Institute, which has received funding from oil interests, showed that Crockford was paid by the institute for the explicit purpose of combatting the United Nations' consensus reports on the state of climate science. She has co-authored several of Heartland's "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" (NIPCC) reports that attempt to mirror and debunk the U.N. reports. Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth has stated that the NIPCC reports have "no standing whatsoever."


https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/02/35000-beached-w...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oldies but Goodies ... Avalon Hill and
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
If you're a Dominionist who believes in end-times prophecy, long-term solutions are irrelevant. Shreveport James will probably be along shortly to add some additional comments and videos.

whistle

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Child labor laws also need to be eliminated. We have a massive amount of unused child labor here in the US. Just imagine how fast our economy would grow if we could get those kids out of the classrooms and into the factories making stuff.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

I presume you meant to write: 'There are plenty of convincing reasons, I just pretend they aren't there because they inconvenience me. Or are really just SEPs.' Because accepting that it ultimately comes back to you too means that you have to bow your stiff prideful neck for cold objective science, and the fact that there are other people on the planet too. That cannot ever be allowed. Ever. Right?

Obligatory XKCD comic.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
"This is a really weird game, and you’ll find that most people will not want to play this."
Avatar
mb
So Trump has to choose between:

A) Signing on to a toothless climate pact that has no enforcement mechanism but at least guarantees the USA a seat at the table for future plans
B) Leaving said toothless climate pact in order to pander to low-information voters who associate anything resembling climate change to "the liberals."

Choose... wisely...


14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

Ferret


Does that mean having "savings" is no longer a convincing reason?


Sorry, don't understand....I have many savings, but that's probably not what you're trying to say/imply?


Ferret

"Savings" as in not burning away the finite natural resources we have been endowed with. Or: Not consuming today that we can consume tomorrow.

Natural resources are actual real savings, unlike monetary savings which net to zero in a society anyway when looking at the other side of the ledger. (monetary savings = monetary debt)



Aha! I wondered you were talking about money.

Yes there's definitely a limit on our resources, but nothing we don't have time and technology to grow out of. There's going to be an awesome amount of mining coming to the Moon, the asteroids, etc.....looking forward to it.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mirth123 wrote:
[

This Susan Crockford seems to be pretty bias in her views, got anything a little more.....you know, with a little more science in it?


I don't know who "Susan Crockford" is...are you questioning the source? It sounds like it. I figured Polar Bear Science was pretty definitive--would somebody like WWF or the UN work for you?



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPIGuy wrote:
If you're a Dominionist who believes in end-times prophecy, long-term solutions are irrelevant. Shreveport James will probably be along shortly to add some additional comments and videos.

:whistle:



Good point, good point.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
odie73 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

Ferret


Does that mean having "savings" is no longer a convincing reason?


Sorry, don't understand....I have many savings, but that's probably not what you're trying to say/imply?


Ferret

"Savings" as in not burning away the finite natural resources we have been endowed with. Or: Not consuming today that we can consume tomorrow.

Natural resources are actual real savings, unlike monetary savings which net to zero in a society anyway when looking at the other side of the ledger. (monetary savings = monetary debt)



Aha! I wondered you were talking about money.

Yes there's definitely a limit on our resources, but nothing we don't have time and technology to grow out of. There's going to be an awesome amount of mining coming to the Moon, the asteroids, etc.....looking forward to it.


Ferret


I am usually not one to be confrontational, laughs, but this comment displays the height of ignorance. This is of course, assuming we live to see the day you mention. I will give you credit, you do enjoy posting for "shock value", but the only thing that is shocking at times is your lack of knowledge, compassion, or understanding of a topic.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cymric wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I agree with Ted....there really aren't any convincing reasons otherwise in any event.

I presume you meant to write: 'There are plenty of convincing reasons, I just pretend they aren't there because they inconvenience me.


No, I meant what I said and I said what I meant. I've given you nothing but factual information in the past unless I specifically noted otherwise; you really should have learned the difference by now.

Ted's right; you seem to be wrong. It's okay; not the first time.





Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Mirth123 wrote:
[

This Susan Crockford seems to be pretty bias in her views, got anything a little more.....you know, with a little more science in it?


I don't know who "Susan Crockford" is...are you questioning the source? It sounds like it. I figured Polar Bear Science was pretty definitive--would somebody like WWF or the UN work for you?



Ferret


She is the person behind the link you provided. You know the being paid by climate deniers. You have something more objective or is this signature display of your ignorance the best you really have
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
fightcitymayor wrote:
So Trump has to choose between:

A) Signing on to a toothless climate pact that has no enforcement mechanism but at least guarantees the USA a seat at the table for future plans
B) Leaving said toothless climate pact in order to pander to low-information voters who associate anything resembling climate change to "the liberals."

Choose... wisely...




It is pretty toothless; why can't the rest of the world just get on with their saving as much as they can without the US? Surely even a 70% solution --the rest of the world--is better than a zero percent solution?



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Mirth123 wrote:
[

This Susan Crockford seems to be pretty bias in her views, got anything a little more.....you know, with a little more science in it?


I don't know who "Susan Crockford" is...are you questioning the source? It sounds like it. I figured Polar Bear Science was pretty definitive--would somebody like WWF or the UN work for you?



Ferret


She is the person behind the link you provided. You know the being paid by climate deniers. You have something more objective or is this signature display of your ignorance the best you really have


Oh, I'm so sorry....now that you've brought accusations of Holocaust Denial (I lost family in the Holocaust so that kinda bothers me) there's really nothing valuable to discuss with you anymore.

Fun while it lasted....you guys got what, 10 or 12 posts in this time? That's better at least.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/29/news/trump-paris-climate-cha...

Well, what do ya know, go figure. Trump bucking the trend, yet again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.