Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[Nakura Chambers]

Not to mention the fact that Obama's entire "green energy" plan was nothing more than a farce to give our tax-dollars to his campaign contributors.

[Spectral]

Al Gore is very damaging to the entire case for man made climate change.

I think science would be much better off just making the case that pollution is bad, and we need to reduce it. I think everyone can get behind that.

But trying to tie it to global climate change projections greatly weakens the case. And its not a needed step. Just say "let's fight pollution."

So, what, you want scientists to just STFU and stop publishing papers because some people don't like the results? You're making my point.

[Bakis]

You can build as many windmills as you want, but it still won't be a viable energy source, plus they are causing the extinction of wildlife (namely birds).

Yes windmills are the only source...

[Nakura Chambers]

Yes windmills are the only source...

Wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, etc. They're not viable.

Nobody is going to build dams anymore, since they destroy ecosystems.

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear power, but the liberals want to ban it.

[Wells]

Wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, etc. They're not viable.

And you'll never change that if you don't spend money on it.

[Spectral]

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear power, but the liberals want to ban it.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...-power-plant-/

[Nakura Chambers]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...-power-plant-/

It's nice to see a few of them joining us in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I don't see the left dropping their anti-nuclear nonsense anytime soon.

[Spectral]

It's nice to see a few of them joining us in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I don't see the left dropping their anti-nuclear nonsense anytime soon.

Please note the mentioned time frame. Really, you've made a complete fairy tale version of liberals in your head, and have decided to contrast it against actual anti-science positions of the right.

[Bakis]

Wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, etc. They're not viable.

Nobody is going to build dams anymore, since they destroy ecosystems.

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear power, but the liberals want to ban it.

There are plenty of western countries lowering their impact on the environment, the culprit in the US is that there is no broad will to do so.
The soruces stated wont be enough I agree but there are no serious research done on a broad level or any will to change the way of life.
The US is and has been the top poluter per capita for decades simply cos of this.
With a mindset like "It's not that we don't believe in climate change, it's that we don't think there is anything viable the government can do to stop it.", I'm not really surprised either.

[smelltheglove]

It's nice to see a few of them joining us in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I don't see the left dropping their anti-nuclear nonsense anytime soon.

you realize that not all liberals are against nuclear power? or can we infer that a few = all, and declare conservatives pro-rape?

[Nakura Chambers]

Please note the mentioned time frame. Really, you've made a complete fairy tale version of liberals in your head, and have decided to contrast it against actual anti-science positions of the right.

It's no fair-tale that the left is anti-nuclear. Not all of them, but a rather sizable amount, possibly even a majority. So Republicans are "anti-science" because we have a lot of Christians in our party? You're just grasping at straws with your whole "the right is anti-science" nonsense.

Telling someone that they're "anti-science" isn't a very good way to convince them that your ideas are right.

---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 09:14 PM ----------

There are plenty of western countries lowering their impact on the environment, the culprit in the US is that there is no broad will to do so.
The soruces stated wont be enough I agree but there are no serious research done on a broad level or any will to change the way of life.
The US is and has been the top poluter per capita for decades simply cos of this.
With a mindset like "It's not that we don't believe in climate change, it's that we don't think there is anything viable the government can do to stop it.", I'm not really surprised either.

I'm in favor of scientific research towards alternative energy, possibly even fusion power. However, I'm not in favor of ttacks on our freedom and principles; carbon tax, cap-and-trade, protectionism, etc.

[Spectral]

It's no fair-tale that the left is anti-nuclear. Not all of them, but a rather sizable amount, possibly even a majority. So Republicans are "anti-science" because we have a lot of Christians in our party? You're just grasping at straws with your whole "the right is anti-science" nonsense.

I didn't say shit about religion. I said the party takes anti-science positions, and it certainly has on climate change, evolution, abstinence only "education", the effects of coal on the environment and populace, and many more issues.

[smelltheglove]

It's no fair-tale that the left is anti-nuclear. Not all of them, but a rather sizable amount, possibly even a majority.

do you have anything at all to back this up? something that exists outside of your mind? because it is not at all in line with my experience.

[melodramocracy]

You're just grasping at straws with your whole "the right is anti-science" nonsense.

You're probably not reading opinions from quite a few right wingers then. Religion seems to trump science whenever it's most convienent for many.

The problem really seems to be that the majority of the country has a different definition of small gov't than republicans do. The right seems to embrace a model where the federal government is as minimal as possible in terms of potential economic security for people, but quite intrusive when it comes to personal freedoms, decisions and responsibilities. Most folks want something else, and the elections seem to prove that.

[Collegeguy]

I didn't say shit about religion. I said the party takes anti-science positions, and it certainly has on climate change, evolution, abstinence only "education", the effects of coal on the environment and populace, and many more issues.

Just as silly saying the Democrats take anti-family positions or anti-religious positions. Please argue something useful for a change.

[Kasierith]

Wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, etc. They're not viable.

Nobody is going to build dams anymore, since they destroy ecosystems.

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear power, but the liberals want to ban it.

Yes, the dams have such a devastating effect on the ecosystem compared to the current system.

http://www.safewatermovement.org/wp-...val-jj-001.jpg
http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/cleaning-oil-spill-1.jpg
http://www.personal.psu.edu/dkm5096/...estruction.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PrH25uTXbC...TS-ON-FIRE.jpg

In comparison, even the most dangerous renewable resources are actually quite gentle. Although, I don't really understand how solar energy is so dangerous to the environment. As for nuclear power, that would be the ideal alternative, but the expenses of nuclear power are quite massive overall.

[Seranthor]

even if i work for you, YOUR PERSONAL VIEWS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY HEALTHCARE. you being my employer doesnt give you the right to know or dictate a fucking thing pertaining to my healthcare.

i seriously dont know how many other ways to put this. not allowing you to invade my privacy or take away my rights is NOT taking rights from you. me not sharing your religion is NOT me attacking your religion

Exactly, and if your employer decides he doesn't WANT to provide it any longer, thats a choice... HIS choice.

---------- Post added 2012-11-14 at 10:48 PM ----------

They don't have the choice to pick and choose what basic health services are provided in health care plans, no. Or they shouldn't, at least. I can't imagine being so spectacularly authoritarian as to say, "I don't like X, so I don't want people that are working for me to do X on their own time".

Salt Ban in NYC, Large Soda Ban in NYC, both come to mind as Government intrusions into peoples privacy... :P

[Cthulhu 2020]

Wind energy, solar energy, ethanol, etc. They're not viable.

Nobody is going to build dams anymore, since they destroy ecosystems.

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear power, but the liberals want to ban it.

Microchips and motherboards weren't viable at their inception. They were extremely expensive to make and there was no infrastructure to mass produce or support them. But then the government and other private institutions dumped tons of money into R&D, making them cheap and efficient for private use. Funny how that works. The only difference is you didn't have multi billion dollar corporations fighting microchip research tooth and nail as the byproduct of green energy is cut profits for the oil industry.

Stifling innovation which would create new jobs, for the sake of preserving old-money big corporations? Doesn't sound very American to me.

[Seranthor]

Access to reproductive control is absolutely basic healthcare. Thankfully, you don't get to define whether it is or not.

Roe v Wade says abortion is legal; It's the law, its settled law. If you want one you shouldn't be looking to the taxpayers to pay for it though. period.

[Kasierith]

Salt Ban in NYC, Large Soda Ban in NYC, both come to mind as Government intrusions into peoples privacy... :P

Wasn't Bloomberg Republican for quite a while before deciding that they didn't properly represent his personal conservative views?