Kansas Crimson

TDub wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:20 am And I dont want the minerals....I want the fresh water and control of the potential new shipping lanes.

Once the GOP completed their gutting of all environmental policies, you wont have to worry about shipping lanes. Melt Greenland's ice sheet and sea levels rise an estimated 20 feet. Melt the Antarctic ice sheet and it goes up an estimated 200 feet. After that, you could drive a shipping vessel right across Florida.

When do you think this will happen? I’m getting ready to buy plane tickets to Florida. But if i can just jump in my boat.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:55 am When do you think this will happen? I’m getting ready to buy plane tickets to Florida. But if i can just jump in my boat.

Depends on how many more Republicans we put in the Oval Office.

it’s already happening

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:15 am

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:55 am When do you think this will happen? I’m getting ready to buy plane tickets to Florida. But if i can just jump in my boat.

Depends on how many more Republicans we put in the Oval Office.

You seriously believe this?

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:20 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:15 am

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:55 am When do you think this will happen? I’m getting ready to buy plane tickets to Florida. But if i can just jump in my boat.

Depends on how many more Republicans we put in the Oval Office.

You seriously believe this?

As far as the impacts that our nation is responsible for? Yes.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:26 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:20 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:15 am

Depends on how many more Republicans we put in the Oval Office.

You seriously believe this?

As far as the impacts that our nation is responsible for? Yes.

That's not what you suggested, you suggested that having Democrats in office would have a significant impact on global climate change.

I have a hard time seeing regulation differences having a significant impact. Not saying we shouldn't do what we can - but I don't buy that simply electing dems will save the planet.

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:34 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:26 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:20 pm

You seriously believe this?

As far as the impacts that our nation is responsible for? Yes.

I have a hard time seeing regulation differences having a significant impact.

JFC

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:35 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:34 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:26 pm
As far as the impacts that our nation is responsible for? Yes.

I have a hard time seeing politically viable regulation differences having a significant impact.

JFC

FMP

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:34 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:26 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:20 pm

You seriously believe this?

As far as the impacts that our nation is responsible for? Yes.

That's not what you suggested, you suggested that having Democrats in office would have a significant impact on global climate change.

I have a hard time seeing regulation differences having a significant impact. Not saying we shouldn't do what we can - but I don't buy that simply electing dems will save the planet.

What I wrote and what I believe is that the GOP platform has in my opinion significantly more negative impact to our global environment than that of the Dems. Both parties need to enact pretty radical changes to steer the Titanic away from the proverbial iceberg, but the Grand Ol' Party of "yeah but what's in it for me" seems to be less willing to make those changes are more willing to deny that changes are needed at all.

It will be decades before we know the full impact of the Trump administration on our environment.

if the US leads, i can’t help but think/hope many others will follow

the US leading also means that technology becomes cheaper and more accessible faster for much of the rest of the world

so, at minimum indirectly, changes in US policy/regulations will likely have a global impact on other nation’s abilities to do the same, resulting in a greater impact towards lessening the ultimate impacts of climate change

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:27 pm if the US leads, i can’t help but think/hope many others will follow

the US leading also means that technology becomes cheaper and more accessible faster for much of the rest of the world

so, at minimum indirectly, changes in US policy/regulations will likely have a global impact on other nation’s abilities to do the same, resulting in a greater impact towards lessening the ultimate impacts of climate change

China is the big problem. They have a fundamental disregard for the environment and are actively destroying the globe at an alarming rate.

And that will never get better with more climate, science or even common sense deniers like Trump in the Oval Office.

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:14 am I'm not talking about drilling for oil or holding condos, you are the only one bringing up texas oilmen and how in this, and only this, particular instance you believe them.

We're talking about the moron in the White House who thinks we should nuke hurricanes. Rex Tillerson came from being the opposite of Trump, a working guy who made good and became head of one of the largest oil companies. If he called Trump a "fucking moron," I'm guessing he has encountered some as he worked his way up the corporate ladder, instead of being handed a fortune.

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:12 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:14 am I'm not talking about drilling for oil or holding condos, you are the only one bringing up texas oilmen and how in this, and only this, particular instance you believe them.

We're talking about the moron in the White House who thinks we should nuke hurricanes. Rex Tillerson came from being the opposite of Trump, a working guy who made good and became head of one of the largest oil companies. If he called Trump a "fucking moron," I'm guessing he has encountered some as he worked his way up the corporate ladder, instead of being handed a fortune.

Interesting that your a rex Tillerson fan now.

But enough of the diversion. Seahawk. You owe me an explanation, an apology, or both. I may be lots of things...a pigheaded misogynist is not one. I dont appreciate being labeled as such and I dont believe you have any reason to call me that except for that fact that I am not in complete agreeable with your political stance. If that's your only reason that's pretty petty reason to use such strong terms.

The diversion is all on your part. I never called you anything, simply made an observation about an excuse that's being publicly advanced about the moronic idea of purchasing Greenland. As for labeling, you're the one who labeled me as simply partisan, so no apology is owed from me.

I've not said anything about Tillerson before. Again, you're the one who mentioned oilmen. From what I read, the oil companies have done the research and concluded that Greenland wasn't very feasible for oil exploration. Having seen an offshore rig up close, I assume they know their business and what the costs are for drilling in those areas.

seahawk wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:01 am

TDub wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:15 pm If you can seperate the idea from the person who presented it you might be able to assess its value.

Actually, I read about Greenland's value, but you're so biased that I knew you would disparage anything I said as "Just another liberal female who doesn't like Trump."

Whatever seahawk. Believe what you want.

seahawk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:58 pm The diversion is all on your part. I never called you anything, simply made an observation about an excuse that's being publicly advanced about the moronic idea of purchasing Greenland. As for labeling, you're the one who labeled me as simply partisan, so no apology is owed from me.

I've not said anything about Tillerson before. Again, you're the one who mentioned oilmen. From what I read, the oil companies have done the research and concluded that Greenland wasn't very feasible for oil exploration. Having seen an offshore rig up close, I assume they know their business and what the costs are for drilling in those areas.

Starting to wonder if you're reading anything I write. The only time I mentioned oil was to say that maybe one of trumps oil friends suggested he buy greenland. Nowhere in my arguing that purchasing Greenland is a good idea did I say a damn thing about oil being a reason. In fact, I have specifically mentioned that we preserve the minerals and not disturb the natural resources of the island. I was more interested in the control of potential future shipping lanes and the freshwater.

Bless your heart. I do apologize, as I usually deal with men who are able to do nuance. Obviously, that's outside your capabilities and I'm quite sorry that I made you uncomfortable.

I should have said, "According to Rex Tillerson, who actually dealt with him, Trump is a fucking moron, which makes some complicated explanation of the importance of Greenland other than that it changes the topic and at the same time gives him the chance to insult a female leader of a country not very credible. Here's an interview by a Swedish scientist."

Also, "If Biden or Warren had proposed this, I would have considered it moronic, but for you to insult me by projecting what I'd think and then insulting me for your projection is unacceptable and I expect an immediate apology."

I am sorry for you.