T
Tablefor9
Guest
Excellent.
- Status
F
frobert
Guest
A good example of us against them. Got to keep the troops hyped.
These conservatives want to convince you that climate change is real
Understanding science doesn’t make you liberal
Quote
“My co-author Paul Douglas has a saying liberals may not like,” said Republican Rev. Mitch Hescox. “Believing in science doesn’t make you a liberal; it makes you literate.” Hescox, a former coal industry engineer, heads the Evangelical Environment Network and is co-author of the book Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment. He spoke today about a new television campaign to break through the beltway echo chamber and counter the notion that only liberals believe in climate change.
The ads tackle an increasingly critical question in science – how do you get people to accept a fact with potentially political implications? According to a growing body of research, you separate the science defining the problem from the possible solutions.
Hescox were joined by Jerry Taylor, a former Cato Institute climate skeptic who now advocates for climate science acceptance and Peter Bryn, an ExxonMobil engineer turned climate advocate who works for the Citizen’s Climate Lobby. All have conservative bonafides. All espouse a belief in small government and market-based solutions. And all accept the science that says climate change is real. Their goal isn’t to get conservatives to clamber behind regulation or larger government, but rather to break the frame which has made climate change into a liberal vs conservative issue.
…"It seems to me that most of the conservatives I talk to believe that there is dispute about climate science and that it is unsettled, and there are people on this side and that side of the divide without any real consensus. And the reality is that’s simply not true,” said Taylor, who noted that many prominent climate skeptics don’t even argue that global warming isn’t happening—just that it won’t be as bad as others predict.
Emphases added
B
Beryllos
Guest
Yes.
S
steve_b
Guest
Just thinking out loud
according to science, even before we had humans on this planet, this planet went through several ice ages. Which in extension also means the planet went through global warmings. So what caused those events over 10’s and 100’s of millions of years? Nature. They happened naturally.
Can science argue, we will never have future ice ages and global warmings if we listen to them? If so, then that would mean they can claim to control climate on the planet.
If that’s true, then let’s see science, prevent individual hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, etc etc and start this coming season.
G
GEddie
Guest
Someone call the Cyclone Ranger 
F
frobert
Guest
Are you aware of any scientists claiming they can control weather? I think any attempts at artificial climate will have its share of unintended consequences just as burring a couple billion years of stored sunlight during our short industrial age has done.
S
steve_b
Guest
Every one who lectures us on global warming is our fault.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Excellent article, thanks for sharing.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That’s kind of a red herring posed in a question. The argument is about controlling weather, it’s about understanding what is going on.
People really do not understand. 95% of the climate models have been wrong, and the alarmists have been using the same bullying tactics the radical SJWs and feminists are using now for a long time.
If they had the answers, they wouldn’t need all of this nonsense and ethos.
F
frobert
Guest
No it isn’t. I just added to steve b’s thought experiment.
thanks for the feedback.
Models are like theories, as the the models are tested and the evidence accumulated the models are tweaked to make better predictions. If anything, I believe the models have been too conservative, that many tipping points have already been passed and that future generations will be paying dearly for our mistakes.
Bullying tactics are used on both sides of the divide and playing victim does not help support debate.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Every single tipping point they’ve had for the past 80 years has been wrong. That will not change.
Today that is a false equivalency. Most of the “academics” if you dare call it that running the show cannot stand a different opinion on climate change, but that comes with the fragile culture of Western universities.
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
This is probably going to upset people, but I believe this is more accurate.
Abortion isn’t as big of an issue as Climate Change, Social Security etc.
uscatholic.org/blog/201603/can-catholic-vote-democrat-moral-considerations-30587
Abortion isn’t as big of an issue as Climate Change, Social Security etc.
uscatholic.org/blog/201603/can-catholic-vote-democrat-moral-considerations-30587
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Abortion is the most important of our time. It is a grave offense against innocent life.
Social security is an entitlement that may not be around much longer, and man-made climate change is largely oversold and ridden with corruption in academia.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I’ve never understood why social security is called an entitlement. You pay into it and get back. Those who have fallen on hard times benefit as well. Isn’t that the Catholic principle of subsidiarity? Am I missing something?
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
"Even though the overall abortion rate has declined in the past three decades, it has risen by **18% **among poor women. Catholic voters might come to the conclusion that the Democratic platform of social and economic aid could help alleviate the conditions that are motivating poor women to seek abortion in the first place.
Even though a particular candidate might want abortion to remain legal, this candidate might also support policies to lessen hunger and homelessness, improve education and healthcare, and strengthen the economy. The Democratic candidate might be more in line with Catholic social teaching concerning protection of the environment, meaningful work, a just and living wage, and care for immigrants and the poor. The Democratic candidate might agree with the Catholic Church concerning the death penalty and torture. A Catholic voter might sincerely believe that the Democratic candidate would more effectively promote peace and justice, both nationally and globally."
Even though a particular candidate might want abortion to remain legal, this candidate might also support policies to lessen hunger and homelessness, improve education and healthcare, and strengthen the economy. The Democratic candidate might be more in line with Catholic social teaching concerning protection of the environment, meaningful work, a just and living wage, and care for immigrants and the poor. The Democratic candidate might agree with the Catholic Church concerning the death penalty and torture. A Catholic voter might sincerely believe that the Democratic candidate would more effectively promote peace and justice, both nationally and globally."
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
I call it Christian. Helping the people that need it the most.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
I am not arguing for the Democrats, but it’s the point that matters.
Helping the poor=Less Abortions.
There is NOTHING on any Republican Platform that says anything about helping the poor.
I quote:
But what about the president’s ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade? Republicans have appointed 12 of the last 16 justices, but still the Supreme Court has not overturned Roe v. Wade. For this to happen, a president would need to appoint enough justices to have at least a five justice majority willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is complicated; during confirmation hearings, nominees never comment on how they would rule on specific issues that might come before the Court. You can never really know how a nominee will rule until they are already on the bench and ruling. Thus, a Catholic could look at this scenario and reasonably conclude that it is very unlikely Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.
Additionally, overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t actually make abortion illegal; it would merely bounce the issue back to individual states to decide. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, some states would have legal abortions available with few or no restrictions, some states would have more restrictions, and some states would make abortion illegal. Probably every woman who still wanted a legal abortion would be able to get one. The exception, of course, is poor women who might not have the resources to travel long distances or across state lines. Would these women then resort to illegal abortions? What would the punishment be for breaking the law?
Helping the poor=Less Abortions.
There is NOTHING on any Republican Platform that says anything about helping the poor.
I quote:
But what about the president’s ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade? Republicans have appointed 12 of the last 16 justices, but still the Supreme Court has not overturned Roe v. Wade. For this to happen, a president would need to appoint enough justices to have at least a five justice majority willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is complicated; during confirmation hearings, nominees never comment on how they would rule on specific issues that might come before the Court. You can never really know how a nominee will rule until they are already on the bench and ruling. Thus, a Catholic could look at this scenario and reasonably conclude that it is very unlikely Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.
Additionally, overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn’t actually make abortion illegal; it would merely bounce the issue back to individual states to decide. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, some states would have legal abortions available with few or no restrictions, some states would have more restrictions, and some states would make abortion illegal. Probably every woman who still wanted a legal abortion would be able to get one. The exception, of course, is poor women who might not have the resources to travel long distances or across state lines. Would these women then resort to illegal abortions? What would the punishment be for breaking the law?
T
TeenCatholicGuy
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
If you really want to help people, then you darn well be able to see beyond the bleed-heart talking points you keep posting all over this forum because otherwise you will make it WORSE for the people you claim to want to help.
Also, I’m a minority, and I’ve heard all of these arguments before. I do not for 5 seconds believe people on the Western left when they say they want to help or talk about how Christian they are, especially since the second they have to give something of their own up, they stop short. That’s not Christian at all as Jesus talked about personal sacrifice, not showing every 4 years to vote for Hillary or Trudeau.
See, it’s easy to be in high school and advocate for using the force of government to take from others and give to “the poor”-------even though in America the poorest people are still collectively the 18th wealthiest nation on earth if it were broken down------but not so easy when you’ve got a business to run, people to employ and the government takes 60 cents of every dollar and wastes it on things like war or lining their own pockets-----even the nice Democrats whom you absolutely adore.
- Status