Is it possible to be a Conservative & an Environmentalist?

Nmysys wrote: I am living on Social security that I worked and paid into all of my life. I am sorry that you younger people won't get to see any of it, but I am neither responsible for that, nor is there anything I could do about it.

I don't think that I want Granny or Gramps to lose their S.S or Medicare, since I would then starve to death wouldn't I? Does that shoot that one down?

Environmental debt? What does that mean ICE? Why don't you take that prick out of your mouth Jerkoff and figure out is it is selfish?

You don't know sh** about me, and you think you can hide behind a screenname and call me names. Screw you!!!

We aren't selfish. We think lazy, stupid people like you should work for a living instead of begging the government to solve all of your problems.

Got it! You got yours , no doing math too stupid for that, screw everybody else. I guess we know where you are coming from.
I rest my case. Thanks for making my case. I knew you would.

And your point? He would be a faming lib today , by your crackpot standards

Wow...crackpot standards...never had that one thrown at me before.

Anyway, many western politicians were conservatives/environmentalists...Goldwater was a prime example.

"While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment."
-Flaming Barry Goldwater(by today's standards)

Nmysys wrote: I am living on Social security that I worked and paid into all of my life. I am sorry that you younger people won't get to see any of it, but I am neither responsible for that, nor is there anything I could do about it.

I don't think that I want Granny or Gramps to lose their S.S or Medicare, since I would then starve to death wouldn't I? Does that shoot that one down?

Environmental debt? What does that mean ICE? Why don't you take that prick out of your mouth Jerkoff and figure out is it is selfish?

You don't know sh** about me, and you think you can hide behind a screenname and call me names. Screw you!!!

We aren't selfish. We think lazy, stupid people like you should work for a living instead of begging the government to solve all of your problems.

The hypocrisy in this post is breathtaking, exceeded only by the ignorant assumptions contained in it. So you think that everyone who is interested in preserving the ecology is not only a disgusting "socialist PIG" but also doesn't work for a living and is begging the government to solve all their problems?

Funny that the guy living on a government check should say that to people who ARE working for a living, don't you think? Or did you just assume we are all welfare queens or something?

You sound like all the rest of the Liberals on here Ice. What the hell are seniors like me to do for poor little old you? What are we supposed to do, die off sooner, so that you young people can get on the S.S. rolls or Vote for the government to take the money from those who have more than you and give it to you?

What math was I supposed to be able to do? Figure out how to give you some of what I worked for? FYI ICE, I'm 70 years old and worked for everything I have, which is very little, but instead of whining about not having, or wanting from those who have more than I do and wanting to bankrupt this country, I choose to do something about it, rather than drink the KoolAid. I don't know what you think you got out of my reply, but to ,me you are just another drive by troll that doesn't know sh**. But you are entitled to not know sh**, because you were fortunate enough to be born in this country and be educated under the education system in this country that has had money thrown at it constantly to please you Liberals and as a result, we are way behind every other Western Civilized Country probably in the world.

Thanks for making my case. I knew you would

What case was that? You couldn't make it, so I had to make it for you, whatever the hell you think that case is.

AV:

Does everything I write pertain to everyone of you that read it? I don't assume a damn thing about you. All I know is you are on the bleeding heart Liberals on here. That's all. Since the Birth Certificate Issue came up from Trump, it seems that is all that is being posted, Liberals using Conservative complaints that had been used against them and thinking by sheer volume alone that they are going to win all the battles.

This forum is turning into a Liberal breeding ground. You all have fun now, y'hear, I have better things to do than to argue with fools.

Weak , your answer is to say all libs suck, great response to your hypocritical being. LOL What a joke you have become.

Science Chic wrote: (yes, TPP, I have read JunkScience, among many others, have you read http://www.realclimate.org/ or James Hansen's blog http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ?). A hypothesis cannot be denied without first being carefully weighed and considered from the primary sources.

"Tagline: If we can pay as much attention to the Earth as we do to our beer, we probably wouldn’t need to worry about global warming." We can control the temperature of beer, not the Earth! Silliness.

Yes, I've read they're theories. And don't agree.

But still NO answer on why the WORST HUMAN polluters on Earth are except from all these MANDATED TAXs & Regulations "Treaties"??

Science Chic wrote: Whew, here I thought that my post had totally killed the topic! I have to go to a Teacher Conference for my son right now, so I wanted to let you know that it'll be a while before I can respond, lots of good stuff there Heartless! Thanks! Continue on without me...

This was a nice attempt at an adult discussion, SC. Unfortunately the simple minded "liberal/conservative" blather has taken over and filled the tread with a heaping mound of crap.

WTH do you want?
With a title like "Is it possible to be a Conservative & an Environmentalist?"
How do you think this was going to go?
I answered, YES.

Science Chic wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: SC are you doing the CG thing, start a thread then never enter the discussion? No offense intended CG.

Science Chic wrote: I'll reserve my thoughts for a bit if you don't mind.

Posted at 10:11am.
I thought I'd give y'all more than an hour and a half - I know it seems like forever that you've been here, but I wanted to see whether the direction this discussion went was a little more comprehensive first!

For example, no one's addressed this statement: "How much of the enormous changes necessary can be driven by policy premised on small government, low taxes, and reduced regulation?"

Heartless, you mentioned Commanche and solar arrays as not being cost-competitive, but what about the point in the article that fossil fuels aren't free-market priced? If so, solar, wind, geothermal, and wave would certainly be cost-competitive right now. And Commanche may be brand new, with the latest technology, but it doesn't have Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, so it's still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, along with many other pollutants like arsenic and sulfur.

My neighbor, a financial genius, and I had a great conversation yesterday about the economy. He gets PO'd when he hears Dem's talking about "investing" in infrastructure - a spend-y thought process. Instead, he'd just like to see quiet maintenance and upgrades being budgeted for - like the electrical grid. It shouldn't have to be this massive project that seems so scary in terms of scope and cost, but merely an improvement of the crappy existing infrastructure. And the money that would be spent improving it, will be paid back in terms of better efficiency. http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/201 ... ifty-chart

But I see the most efficiency for the mitigation of climate change as being at the individual and community level. (More on that later so this post isn't so long). But this requires an ongoing examination on everyone's part as to how they live their lives and what they can do (to save money primarily, but also help the environment), active, engaged, and sustained action, and for this to all happen an understanding of why it's important is essential. Climate change isn't going to be a quick or easy fix, so while it doesn't have to start because you believe in AGW or don't, it will have to continue because eventually you will.

Omniscience wrote: An environmentalist? No, because I see today's 'environmentalism' much differently than I did 20 years ago. I've encountered way too many self-identified 'environmentalists' that have no understanding of simple concepts such as 'opportunity cost' and are actually pretty narrow-minded (and at times hypocritical) in their approach to solving natural resource related issues.

I absolutely agree that there are way too many narrow-minded, self-serving environmentalists who don't have a grasp of the big picture or the effects of implementing or not implementing certain technologies, who go all NIMBY, and don't consider the other side of the coin conscientiously enough (like cap-and-trade, or cash-for-clunkers - feel-good, but sh**ty programs in terms of effectiveness in mitigation). That's why I believe it's imperative to bring the conservative viewpoint into the solutions required. CriticalBill often states that "green" technologies are too expensive and will bankrupt our economy eve worse than it is now. I don't believe that to be so, and am gathering data to show how.

major bean wrote: Not everything spouted by liberals is scientific truth. Here is where the controversy starts. Liberals say that if you do not agree, unquestioningly, with everything that we put forward, then you are not an environmentalist.

I've never made any such claims that everything spouted by liberals is scientific truth, nor that anyone must agree unquestioningly. On the contrary, I support critical reasoning and thinking for one's self, as evidenced by my sig line. All I've ever asked is that those who deny global warming is occurring, or has become more influenced by our actions than by natural variation give the evidence a chance, with your own first-hand critique, not media's or blogs' regurgitation (yes, TPP, I have read JunkScience, among many others, have you read http://www.realclimate.org/ or James Hansen's blog http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ?). A hypothesis cannot be denied without first being carefully weighed and considered from the primary sources.

More later, as this is getting too wordy and I need to go eat lunch. Good discussion so far, let's get deeper!

I figured that this was where this thread was initially destined to go; global warming. You cannot be an environmentalist without believing in global warming caused by human beings.
The litmus test.