One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The science of climate change has nothing to do with the science and is all about the political views of the objectors.
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Jul 31, 2017 08:26:50   #
Morgan
 
Hence, is it any wonder that many people prefer climate change denial to having to face the prospect of building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality?



Reply
Jul 31, 2017 08:34:01   #
Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas
 
Morgan wrote:
Hence, is it any wonder that many people prefer climate change denial to having to face the prospect of building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality?



Well Morgan, I have learned that any action by our Gov using the word " collective" tends to take away from the many, for the good of the few.....one should not be bringing down the many to raise the socio economics of the few.......the few should be raised, not the other way around.....in my most humbling opinion of course.

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 09:14:47   #
Ve'hoe
 
it only proves the political views of the idiots on your side, who buy any scheme the government shoves up your ignorant butt,,,, look at what Obama care is doing,,,,,,,,,, and I suppose you do,,,,,, "free helfkair feral" yet it is not free, nor is it healthcare,,,, it is piss poor "insurance" but you don't ever seem to see the card the govt has in its other hand

you,, (collectively) are easily fooled...... by the pretty colors in the graph



Morgan wrote:
Hence, is it any wonder that many people prefer climate change denial to having to face the prospect of building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality?

Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2017 09:35:26   #
Morgan
 
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
Well Morgan, I have learned that any action by our Gov using the word " collective" tends to take away from the many, for the good of the few.....one should not be bringing down the many to raise the socio economics of the few.......the few should be raised, not the other way around.....in my most humbling opinion of course.


Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against a word? Maybe you could explain to me how a party that speaks of so much of patriotism be so against their own government in every way? Unless of course it benefits their own cause. I see the corruption also, but when the vast majority of the people do benefit than I tend to go with it and my faith in it is supported and restored, at least to an extent, weeding it out will take time. But a house can always be built on a good foundation and that is what we have.

Getting back to the post it was written from a climatologist from London,Mark Maslin... so his use in the term "collective" was in relation (in my understanding) to the world and the human race. We...have to work in a collaborative effort to remedy the global warming, there really isn't any other way. There isn't any underlying motive here. He as a scientist is frustrated at trying to inform the public, with only the intention of trying to get us all to implement the changes we need take, in order to protect our own future...?

This is not raising the socio economics of the few, it would be a world effort and in that effecting the world, don't get all crazy on me now with the whole world order thing, no this is separate countries working together. As some have written, what good is it what we cut back if other countries aren't doing the same, that is a valid point and that is what he's addressing.

I agree with you though the few should be brought up with the many, that is my concern also and in that premise we are the same.

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 09:38:37   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Morgan wrote:
Hence, is it any wonder that many people prefer climate change denial to having to face the prospect of building a new political (and socio-economic) system, which allows collective action and greater equality?


So you're saying that the party that receives the most money from GWA is most likely to believe it.

OK...

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 09:40:46   #
Morgan
 
Ve'hoe wrote:
it only proves the political views of the idiots on your side, who buy any scheme the government shoves up your ignorant butt,,,, look at what Obama care is doing,,,,,,,,,, and I suppose you do,,,,,, "free helfkair feral" yet it is not free, nor is it healthcare,,,, it is piss poor "insurance" but you don't ever seem to see the card the govt has in its other hand

you,, (collectively) are easily fooled...... by the pretty colors in the graph


Wow Ve'hoe I thought we had gotten past speaking to each other in such a manner, I'm not talking about healthcare here, maybe you should begin your own post if that's what you want to talk about.

This post has nothing to do with our government, it is written by a climatologist from another country, concerned for our preservation and future stability.

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 09:42:05   #
Morgan
 
Super Dave wrote:
So you're saying that the party that receives the most money from GWA is most likely to believe it.

OK...


No that's not what I'm saying ...that's only what you're hearing...see the difference?

Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2017 09:51:00   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
Morgan wrote:
No that's not what I'm saying ...that's only what you're hearing...see the difference?


You do know it's true that the Democrat Party was taking money hand-over-fist from Solyndra and all of the other failed companies that the Democrat sent huge chunks of money to in the failed '$.9Trillion Stimulus Bill' don't you?

Do you think that money-laundering scheme happened by accident?

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:10:40   #
Morgan
 
Super Dave wrote:
You do know it's true that the Democrat Party was taking money hand-over-fist from Solyndra and all of the other failed companies that the Democrat sent huge chunks of money to in the failed '$.9Trillion Stimulus Bill' don't you?

Do you think that money-laundering scheme happened by accident?




Do you think people deny science to stay in alignment with their party?

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:15:57   #
Ve'hoe
 
its called,,,,, "the constitution" that governs the actions of the government to keep it from doing exactly what it is doing now,,,, "ruling"


When the vast amount of people use "than" rather than "then",,,, your "going with it" doesn't make it right...... which is why people don't care to follow your "deeper" concepts, and "collective" ideas on "what we should all do"



Morgan wrote:
Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against a word? Maybe you could explain to me how a party that speaks of so much of patriotism be so against their own government in every way? Unless of course it benefits their own cause. I see the corruption also, but when the vast majority of the people do benefit than I tend to go with it and my faith in it is supported and restored, at least to an extent, weeding it out will take time. But a house can always be built on a good foundation and that is what we have.

Getting back to the post it was written from a climatologist from London,Mark Maslin... so his use in the term "collective" was in relation (in my understanding) to the world and the human race. We...have to work in a collaborative effort to remedy the global warming, there really isn't any other way. There isn't any underlying motive here. He as a scientist is frustrated at trying to inform the public, with only the intention of trying to get us all to implement the changes we need take, in order to protect our own future...?

This is not raising the socio economics of the few, it would be a world effort and in that effecting the world, don't get all crazy on me now with the whole world order thing, no this is separate countries working together. As some have written, what good is it what we cut back if other countries aren't doing the same, that is a valid point and that is what he's addressing.

I agree with you though the few should be brought up with the many, that is my concern also and in that premise we are the same.
Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against... (show quote)

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:17:15   #
Ve'hoe
 
And,,,, they were taking money from the Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, Saudi's, and PLO/hezzbollah.... et al


Super Dave wrote:
You do know it's true that the Democrat Party was taking money hand-over-fist from Solyndra and all of the other failed companies that the Democrat sent huge chunks of money to in the failed '$.9Trillion Stimulus Bill' don't you?

Do you think that money-laundering scheme happened by accident?

Reply
 
 
Jul 31, 2017 10:18:21   #
Ve'hoe
 
Do you think that everyone elses questions deserve answers or just yours?

Morgan wrote:
Do you think people deny science to stay in alignment with their party?

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:20:56   #
Ve'hoe
 
I wasn't talking about healthcare either,,, it was your last failed plan,,,,,,,,,, and no we will not ignore what stupid stunt you pulled last,, and get on with the stupid stunt you want us all to fund today.....

You gave it the political bent in the title,, or can you not remember that far back??

Morgan wrote:
Wow Ve'hoe I thought we had gotten past speaking to each other in such a manner, I'm not talking about healthcare here, maybe you should begin your own post if that's what you want to talk about.

This post has nothing to do with our government, it is written by a climatologist from another country, concerned for our preservation and future stability.

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:21:28   #
Ve'hoe
 
No,,,, I see his point more than yours,,,,,

Morgan wrote:
No that's not what I'm saying ...that's only what you're hearing...see the difference?

Reply
Jul 31, 2017 10:22:18   #
Big Bass
 
Morgan wrote:
Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against a word? Maybe you could explain to me how a party that speaks of so much of patriotism be so against their own government in every way? Unless of course it benefits their own cause. I see the corruption also, but when the vast majority of the people do benefit than I tend to go with it and my faith in it is supported and restored, at least to an extent, weeding it out will take time. But a house can always be built on a good foundation and that is what we have.

Getting back to the post it was written from a climatologist from London,Mark Maslin... so his use in the term "collective" was in relation (in my understanding) to the world and the human race. We...have to work in a collaborative effort to remedy the global warming, there really isn't any other way. There isn't any underlying motive here. He as a scientist is frustrated at trying to inform the public, with only the intention of trying to get us all to implement the changes we need take, in order to protect our own future...?

This is not raising the socio economics of the few, it would be a world effort and in that effecting the world, don't get all crazy on me now with the whole world order thing, no this is separate countries working together. As some have written, what good is it what we cut back if other countries aren't doing the same, that is a valid point and that is what he's addressing.

I agree with you though the few should be brought up with the many, that is my concern also and in that premise we are the same.
Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against... (show quote)

Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against a word?
WOW!! "Good morning weewilly, goodness now you're against a word?" ...and you are not against a word??? "CONSERVATIVE." (Here's a word I'm against - "HYPOCRITE.")

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.