Global warming. I told you it was just a ploy to tax!

[Soul Crusher]

get ready for Obama's gay lol

That too bro!!!!

[Mawse]

How does taxing gas more in this state (and giving the money to illegal aliens) stop global warming again?

will the billions of Chinese and Indian gas users see how progressive we are here in CA and decide to stop using fossil fuels?

should we burn a huge pile of Obama bucks as an offering to Gaia ?

[Necrosis]

How does taxing gas more in this state (and giving the money to illegal aliens) stop global warming again?

will the billions of Chinese and Indian gas users see how progressive we are here in CA and decide to stop using fossil fuels?

should we burn a huge pile of Obama bucks as an offering to Gaia ?

it's poor execution, but an attempt to "lead the way" if one exists.

The cost should be in fines or penalties for the companies doing the vast majority of earth rape.

Either way it's not the solution, the economy needs to shift and transform. We need to move into a new age and into a new revolution like the industrial revolution. Clean energy needs far more RandD. I think solar panels and wave/tidal energy can largely replace gas if we make a big push. Electric cars are becoming viable, Germany has made solar work despite the technological shortcomings.

[Mawse]

it's poor execution, but an attempt to "lead the way" if one exists.

The cost should be in fines or penalties for the companies doing the vast majority of earth rape.

Either way it's not the solution, the economy needs to shift and transform. We need to move into a new age and into a new revolution like the industrial revolution. Clean energy needs far more RandD. I think solar panels and wave/tidal energy can largely replace gas if we make a big push. Electric cars are becoming viable, Germany has made solar work despite the technological shortcomings.

But it's not an attempt to lead the way, it's a tax grab for the "general fund" aka the hidden costs of illegals that they can get away with because the state has a permanent D majority. It also hits the middle class and working class the hardest as it increases the cost of everything from food to rent.

Taxing me more on gas won't stop me driving, unless I quit my job then I'll continue to have to drive 100s of miles a week. If brown would like to pay me to stay home and not work I'd be fine with that. If he buys me a Tesla that's fine too as we have free charging stations at work, but most people aren't as lucky as I am.

Here in SF, rather than encouraging commute options , we have populist politicians actually fining tech companies for providing free bus transport for their workers ... because Gentrification is Bad.

[bears]

I don't know enough to have an opinion on climate change.  as far as I can tell presently there is scientific consensus that man made climate change is real.  I may be wrong. 

my problem is this.

here is the typical liberal opinion:

"i'm quite certain that every penny of additional tax paid will be put to its intended use.  I have absolute confidence in the federal government to use this money to solve our energy problems.  they are good people trying to do the right thing. 

but the FDA and the USDA, don't give any money to them.  they're trying to give us cancer."

someone please explain to me how they can have absolute faith in the government regarding global warming but are absolutely sure that the FDA is trying to give us cancer and autism because they are part of "big pharma".

why do I seem to be the only person who recognizes these ridiculously conflicting assumptions?

[Necrosis]

I don't know enough to have an opinion on climate change.  as far as I can tell presently there is scientific consensus that man made climate change is real.  I may be wrong. 

my problem is this.

here is the typical liberal opinion:

"i'm quite certain that every penny of additional tax paid will be put to its intended use.  I have absolute confidence in the federal government to use this money to solve our energy problems.  they are good people trying to do the right thing. 

but the FDA and the USDA, don't give any money to them.  they're trying to give us cancer."

someone please explain to me how they can have absolute faith in the government regarding global warming but are absolutely sure that the FDA is trying to give us cancer and autism because they are part of "big pharma".

why do I seem to be the only person who recognizes these ridiculously conflicting assumptions?

Those positions are conflicting, but only a moron would hold them. There is no giving someone Autism, it's genetic nothing more, the more people we keep alive by circumventing nature (people with ALS wouldn't have kids, see stephen hawking) we flood the gene pool with weak fucked up genetics. The older we get before we have kids also plays a massive role.

The issue you have is that the people you talk to are morons. Big Pharma has invested so much into cancer research, treatment (including cures for many). If you know the facts about say Autism or Cancer you could immediately shut down such silly arguments.

[bears]

Those positions are conflicting, but only a moron would hold them. There is no giving someone Autism, it's genetic nothing more, the more people we keep alive by circumventing nature (people with ALS wouldn't have kids, see stephen hawking) we flood the gene pool with weak fucked up genetics. The older we get before we have kids also plays a massive role.

The issue you have is that the people you talk to are morons. Big Pharma has invested so much into cancer research, treatment (including cures for many). If you know the facts about say Autism or Cancer you could immediately shut down such silly arguments.

I don't know many liberals who don't believe that GMOS are killing us and that "only buy organic because conventional produce is DANGEROUS".  and the scientific consensus just does not support any of that.  the states that these mandatory labeling lobbyists are pushing the hardest are in the ultra liberal states like New York, California, Oregon and Massachusetts.  and its all bullshit.......if you are on the side of science.

either you ONLY associate with very level headed liberals or you're in denial that the majority actually believe that.

[Necrosis]

I don't know many liberals who don't believe that GMOS are killing us and that "only buy organic because conventional produce is DANGEROUS".  and the scientific consensus just does not support any of that.  the states that these mandatory labeling lobbyists are pushing the hardest are in the ultra liberal states like New York, California, Oregon and Massachusetts.  and its all bullshit.......if you are on the side of science.

either you ONLY associate with very level headed liberals or you're in denial that the majority actually believe that.

I tend to think of myself as liberal in many areas and conservative in others, the concept of being a certain way based on political affiliation seems absurd. I can't see how others can't see this stuff is bullshit, it has to be either delusion or stupidity. I equally dislike the anti-vaccine, energy medicine nut jobs as much as the young earth creationist, oil lovers, both are different forms of irrationality.

For example, GMO's might have health effects, they appear to be safe in most however. The idea of adding healthy genes or splicing things like corn to alter protein expression for less allergenicity is somewhat concerning. Evolution can't be stopped, why couldn't we improve food quality genetically?

The gas people denying global warming is just as bad. There is far more evidence for GMO's being unhealthy then global warming being a hoax. Numerous countries have yet to adopt GMO positive policies, none reject global warming being man made.

[bears]

I tend to think of myself as liberal in many areas and conservative in others, the concept of being a certain way based on political affiliation seems absurd. I can't see how others can't see this stuff is bullshit, it has to be either delusion or stupidity. I equally dislike the anti-vaccine, energy medicine nut jobs as much as the young earth creationist, oil lovers, both are different forms of irrationality.

For example, GMO's might have health effects, they appear to be safe in most however. The idea of adding healthy genes or splicing things like corn to alter protein expression for less allergenicity is somewhat concerning. Evolution can't be stopped, why couldn't we improve food quality genetically?

The gas people denying global warming is just as bad. There is far more evidence for GMO's being unhealthy then global warming being a hoax. Numerous countries have yet to adopt GMO positive policies, none reject global warming being man made.

I used to believe that too.  I was also skeptical of the liberal position on climate change for a time.  but i always come around to listening to the boots on the ground scientists when it comes to either.  

And there is ZERO scientific evidence that GMO's are more or less dangerous than the non GMO alternatives (organic).  ZERO.  and the current scientific consensus on man made climate change is that it is a reality.

if I see another article citing the Seralini study my head will explode.  my wife is an RD so she gets CPE on this shit all the time.  I read it while i'm on the shitter.

and don't get me wrong.  the majority of conservatives believe the same shit.  liberals don't have a monopoly on stupid when it comes to these issues.

[bears]

the best way I've heard it explained was something i read from a scientist blogger.  he said "the only difference between the climate change deniers, the anti GMO people, and the scientific community is that the scientific community is open to the idea that they're wrong.  If they are presented with peer reviewed empirical evidence that is contrary to their scientific opinion, their opinion will change.  the climate change deniers and the anti GMO's position will not change.  they will simply deflect and find a new route to come to their original opinion.   

[Soul Crusher]

the best way I've heard it explained was something i read from a scientist blogger.  he said "the only difference between the climate change deniers, the anti GMO people, and the scientific community is that the scientific community is open to the idea that they're wrong.  If they are presented with peer reviewed empirical evidence that is contrary to their scientific opinion, their opinion will change.  the climate change deniers and the anti GMO's position will not change.  they will simply deflect and find a new route to come to their original opinion.   

The problem is in the so called 'Solutions' and whether anything these people propose would make any difference at all while at the same time costing normal people an arm and a leg. 

[Necrosis]

I used to believe that too.  I was also skeptical of the liberal position on climate change for a time.  but i always come around to listening to the boots on the ground scientists when it comes to either.  

And there is ZERO scientific evidence that GMO's are more or less dangerous than the non GMO alternatives (organic).  ZERO.  and the current scientific consensus on man made climate change is that it is a reality.

if I see another article citing the Seralini study my head will explode.  my wife is an RD so she gets CPE on this shit all the time.  I read it while i'm on the shitter.

and don't get me wrong.  the majority of conservatives believe the same shit.  liberals don't have a monopoly on stupid when it comes to these issues.

I agree there is zero evidence, a lot of it is theoretical. There is some lively debate, particularly about gene insertion and modifying plants for healthful properties. I agree with you and think they are fine, I was more so using it to highlight how absurd the climate change deniers are. There is far more "debate" with GMO's, whether needed or not than in climatology. Yet you have deniers being adamant it is a hoax, a lie etc.. If the strength of scientific weight convinces you regarding GMO, Climate Change should be crushing. There are some rodent studies showing induction of dysbiosis and GI issues with GMO foods. Now the methodology is poor, it was only GMO foods etc.


Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2014 Mar;34(1):77-88. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595. Epub 2013 Sep 16.
An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research.
Nicolia A1, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D.
Author information

Abstract
The technology to produce genetically engineered (GE) plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary and one of the major achievements has been the development of GE crops. The safety of GE crops is crucial for their adoption and has been the object of intense research work often ignored in the public debate. We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety during the last 10 years, built a classified and manageable list of scientific papers, and analyzed the distribution and composition of the published literature. We selected original research papers, reviews, relevant opinions and reports addressing all the major issues that emerged in the debate on GE crops, trying to catch the scientific consensus that has matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide. The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense. An improvement in the efficacy of scientific communication could have a significant impact on the future of agricultural GE. Our collection of scientific records is available to researchers, communicators and teachers at all levels to help create an informed, balanced public perception on the important issue of GE use in agriculture.

[Soul Crusher]

Global Warming is for losers.   

[240 is Back]

evidence is murky and biased on BOTH sides.

What we can agree upon is that 6 years ago, most top republicans were blaming mankind for the temp rises - Mitt, Palin, Mccain, and Newt, remember?

it's only when the base decided they didn't like it anymore, that most republicans decided they too were against it.  

Here's the bottom line, from a guy who doesn't buy into it:
Most liberals/democrats still blame pollution for air damage and warming trends, most repubs do not.  it's that simple.

Therefore, dem politicians keep supporting the theory, and repub politicians do not.  They just reflect the views of their average IQ voters, it's that simple, it really is.  If the "tea party" supporters believed the theory that man was affecting the air (as repubs used to), so would palin and the other repubs.  

Essentially, it just became another issue to divide people, and people were all too happy to choose their side.  Seriously, EITHER PARTY scientists could discover cure to cancer tomorrow, and the other party would cry about the damage to healthcare workers in the US, it's how it'll always be.  Global warming is another wedge issue that NEITHER side can prove, and both are paying scientists to do just that lol.  No credibility from either side at the moment.  Give it 20 years.

[Coach is Back!]

Global Warming is for losers. suckers. 

fixed

[Necrosis]

fixed

So why are people around the world perpetuating a hoax? What gain is there for all of these different countries?

I don;t see where the conspiracy theory is coming from. It makes no sense for it to be a lie, on such a grand scale? The are using basic science to trick us?

[bears]

So why are people around the world perpetuating a hoax? What gain is there for all of these different countries?

I don;t see where the conspiracy theory is coming from. It makes no sense for it to be a lie, on such a grand scale? The are using basic science to trick us?

the conspiracy theory comes into play when they are faced with overwhelming amounts of science that disprove their theory.  then they say, "oh yeah well they're just saying that because its a cover up by all the scientists because they're part of Big.......INSERT WHATEVER HERE"

[bears]

evidence is murky and biased on BOTH sides.

What we can agree upon is that 6 years ago, most top republicans were blaming mankind for the temp rises - Mitt, Palin, Mccain, and Newt, remember?

it's only when the base decided they didn't like it anymore, that most republicans decided they too were against it.  

Here's the bottom line, from a guy who doesn't buy into it:
Most liberals/democrats still blame pollution for air damage and warming trends, most repubs do not.  it's that simple.

Therefore, dem politicians keep supporting the theory, and repub politicians do not.  They just reflect the views of their average IQ voters, it's that simple, it really is.  If the "tea party" supporters believed the theory that man was affecting the air (as repubs used to), so would palin and the other repubs.  

Essentially, it just became another issue to divide people, and people were all too happy to choose their side.  Seriously, EITHER PARTY scientists could discover cure to cancer tomorrow, and the other party would cry about the damage to healthcare workers in the US, it's how it'll always be.  Global warming is another wedge issue that NEITHER side can prove, and both are paying scientists to do just that lol.  No credibility from either side at the moment.  Give it 20 years.

the problem comes in when we raise taxes to pay for it.  my question is "pay for what?" 

I believe man made climate change is real.

I do NOT believe that me giving more money right now to the federal government is necessarily going to help.

and I KNOW that there are a bunch of guys making a shit ton of $$ from the federal government because of climate change.

I just hope that the $$ we spend actually goes towards something fruitful.  I'm not confident.

[whork]

I don't know many liberals who don't believe that GMOS are killing us and that "only buy organic because conventional produce is DANGEROUS".  and the scientific consensus just does not support any of that.  the states that these mandatory labeling lobbyists are pushing the hardest are in the ultra liberal states like New York, California, Oregon and Massachusetts.  and its all bullshit.......if you are on the side of science.

either you ONLY associate with very level headed liberals or you're in denial that the majority actually believe that.

The liberals you know seem like scared little girls. Give them a beating you have my blessing.

[Necrosis]

the conspiracy theory comes into play when they are faced with overwhelming amounts of science that disprove their theory.  then they say, "oh yeah well they're just saying that because its a cover up by all the scientists because they're part of Big.......INSERT WHATEVER HERE"

It's insanity. Facts are facts.