She talks about how to talk, but doesn't actually tell how renewable energy is so great for the enviorment. Short on facts long on tactics. She could have used facts like the Exxon Valdez spill killed 225,000 birds according to the Audubon society http://www.audubon.org/news/how-many-birds-died-bp-oil-spillWhile wind power only kills 140,00 - 328,000 a YEAR! http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birdsI guess this is why liberals are big on tactics short on facts.
Just another example of a poorly written headline that doesn't reflect what the video is about. Did you watch the video Mike? It is not about how to talk about climate change to a conservative. It is about how to talk about renewable energy by avoiding talking about climate change. Because conservatives, like the one who responded before me, are not capable of having an intelligent discussion about climate change. Their ideology trumps their ability to accept the science.Seriously? Bird deaths are a huge concern for conservatives with regard to energy policy? That’s laughable. You know why conservatives can’t intelligently discuss climate change? Because of the confirmation bias which causes them to cherry pick data that supports what they already believe while ignoring information that disagrees with it. Like for instance citing a statistic from the Audubon Society which would make it seem that they are not in favor of wind power when the opposite is true. Wind turbines present less of a threat to birds and man than climate change.From the same website that the bird death numbers came from:“Audubon strongly supports properly sited wind power as a renewable energy source that helps reduce the threats posed to birds and people by climate change.”“Top scientific experts from around the world, including Audubon's own scientists, agree that the effects of climate change are happening now and will get worse. Scientists have found that climate change has already affected half of the world's species' breeding, distribution, abundance, and survival rates. A review of more than 130 scientific studies found that if climate change proceeds as expected, one in six species worldwide could face extinction.”So which is it Mr. Liberal basher? Do you agree with the Audubon’s position on wind turbines? Or did you just cherry pick some of their data while ignoring the context it was given in because it suited your ideology? I guess this is why conservatives are long on statistics but short on understanding.
You attack conservatives for not caring about birds and claim “Their ideology trumps their ability to accept the science”Science shows us at conception a baby is a human with a different DNA than either parent. Who does not accept science?Wind and solar power will not produce the energy to sustain our standard of living. A gallon of gas has the energy of 32.78 kwh the average solar panel is 3.25 by 5.4 feet and produces 265 watts while in the sun. If we round the energy in a gallon of gas down to 30kwh and the solar panel up to 300 watts you would need 100 3.25 x5.4 panels and a bright sun to produce the energy in 1 gallon of gas. By the way 1 horse power is 746 watts. The weakest new car sold here is the Mitsubishi mirage which is 78 hp or 58,000 wattsI do care about birds, the ecology and most of all I care about people.
“Science shows us at conception a baby is a human with a different DNA than either parent”What does that even mean? Is that supposed to be some sort of indictment of science? Science, or genetics specifically in this case, shows us that at conception a baby human is a combination of the genes from both parents.“Who does not accept science?”That’s an easy one. Climate change deniers do not accept the science.Listen, I will be glad to continue this conversation but a moderated blog is not a format for conversations. If you want to visit the Middletown Topix Forum, there is a thread waiting for you, I will engage you, but you should know it will not end well. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.I don’t think Mike will mind if we take this show on the road. http://www.topix.com/forum/city/middletown-nj
What I am saying is at conception a new life comes into being. I spoke about DNA because the DNA of the child is not identical to the mother it is not part of her body. If the DNA is a combination of both parents the child is not part of the mother. If the mother aborts it she is ending another human life. That is the science liberals refuse to believe. My comment about the power in a gallon of gas is the science liberals are ignorant of. Solar and wind power can not maintain our standard of living. Thank you Mike
Oh. I see. You want to argue the science behind your opinion about abortion. (whom you are arguing with isn't clear B/C I didn't express an opinion). At the same time, it seems, you ignore the science behind climate change.Science isn't a menu at a Chinese restaurant, you don't get to pick one from column A and one from column B. If you are willing to accept the science that agrees with your ideology and unwilling to accept science that doesn't support it, then you are being a hypocrite. Which is fine, as long as you know that is what you are doing.You want to say that people who support a woman's right to have an abortion are ignoring science? Okay, I see your point. I don't get involved in abortion rights arguments, they are always zero-sum games which degenerate into personal attacks, especially online. But we were discussing renewable energy when you asked who ignores the science. The answer in that context is climate change deniers ignore the science. By the using the word “science” here, I am referring to a scientific consensus.If you are a climate change denier, as I suspect, then you are no different than the pro-choice people you criticize when it comes to ignoring science.Again a thread is waiting for you at: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/middletown-nj…..if you grow tired of waiting a day for a response. It’s free, you don’t have to register and you can post anonymously in real time.
There is evidence against man caused global warming:Faked temperature readings http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html Evidence of dishonesty among the researchers https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#152bf64c27bathe laughable 97% of climate scientist agreeing on man caused climate change. if you claim to have 97% of something that implies you have a list of 100% where is the list of 100%? Or if it was a scientific poll who conducted it? what was the exact questions asked?Failed predictions of polar ice caps being gone by 2015 https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/arctic-ice-cap-could-be-gone-by-the-summer.htmlAlso if the climate is changing where is the proof that it is caused by mankind?If the climate is warming is it bad. Was the climate better when Chicago was under a glacier or when there was farms on Greenland?
I have addressed and debunked all of your arguments here:http://www.topix.com/forum/city/middletown-nj/T948NGH6AELTHAUQK/climate-changeYou can read it and preferably respond there or you can respond here. But life is too short to have a conversation online which must be approved by a third party.Thanks for facilitating Mike, follow the discussion there if interested.
My take on the subject is simple. Regardless of whether or not climate change is a naturally occurring life cycle of the planet or is facilitated by human interaction with fossil fuels and deforestation, mankind should do everything humanly possible to slow it or stop it's procession.There is no denying that climate change is real, it's happening and we need to deal with it.
I'm not sure why our friend decided to end the conversation. I can only hope that he discovered that when he said....."I guess this is why liberals are big on tactics short on facts."....he learned that he was actually referring to himself. If nothing else, maybe he will see that science doesn't belong to a political party and to be careful where he gets his information from. There is a powerful lobby out there spreading false information because they know that when it comes to economics vs protecting the environment, some people (maybe most) will believe what they want to believe as long as it fits their ideology and fills their pocket books.
Whether it’s the denial that life begins at conception, the denial of sex and gender as biological facts, the denial of decades of research proving that children do best with their father and mother, or the denial of dissenting voices on Darwinism, the left has proven quite capable of ignoring science.
This isn’t about abortion. It’s about you denying the science of climate change and not being able to defend your position with valid facts. I am done discussing it here with you. If you want to have a respectful, informative discussion about climate change, you know where to go. I will accommodate you.
Post a Comment