This is a pretty amazing exchange.
One guy is making a rational, fact-based argument. The other is not. Which one do you agree with?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … ot-vpx.cnn
Sadly, I believe Congressman Dumbass is a reflection of a certain segment of people who have chosen corporate -bought politics over knowledge.
Holy Shite! Congressman Dumbass doesn't recognize an answer when he hears one, so he accuses Kerry of not answering his question. And he's so stupid he thinks a political science degree is a degree in science, and congress is actually applauding him! Are we to assume that he was elected by constituents as dumb as he is? As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
That was a good video link. The Congressman was a "dumbass" partisan flak. Now that the obvious is established, what else can be said?
1. There are "dumbasses" everywhere among us; Congress, the courts, the grocery stores, and even our car washes. Likewise, there are smart folks among us in all those same areas.
2. If you are looking for "dumbass" exhibits from our politicians, all parties have their stars. I am not dismissing this Congressman from Kentucky, (?), but I bet a Google search could find his Democrat equivalent in .23 nanoseconds.
3. Not much left for #3. You got a dumbass, I got a dumbass, they got a dumbass, we all got dumbasses. But ain't it great when you can find one that makes your side look like Einsteins?
Geesh. Politicians are starting to make ditch diggers look like philosophers. And like most philosophical schools, its adherents are just as often as blind to its fallacies as its opponents are to theirs.
Thank goodness for Purples, we can call everybody idiots without being diminished by our own.
Are you folks sure you want to use this guy to make your point? There are other youtube links you know.
And.....here comes GA to be the disapproving schoolmarm. ;-)
Of course there are dumbasses everywhere. Duh.
"Schoolmarm?" That's cold PrettyPanther, I had this great self-image of "schoolmaster." All puffed-up and strutting. Now you having me wondering if my bun is tight and my ankles are covered. Oh well, either way, I still get to keep the sneer.
But think about it. One side holds up a yahoo and says "See, here's proof." And all their yahoos chant "Damn right!" Then the other side finds their yahoo and says, "Aha! Look at this one." And their yahoos chant "See, here's the proof."
While this yahoo contest is going on nobody notices that the Frito Bandito has walked away with the original conversation. Making us the dumbasses.
Sure, I get the point you are making, but in this case, as Islandbites pointed out, no one said this guy is representative of "the other side" or Republicans, though some of us stated he is an example of a certain type of denier, which I believe is a fair point. I don't know if you saw my comment about two friends of mine cheering Trump's threat to shut down the border wall without any thought at all about the negative consequences and no willingness to learn. Same type of person.
Edit: Sorry if the schoolmarm remark offended you. It was meant as joke. I love irreverent humor.
No worries Sandy. I wasn't offended. I tried to make my lead-off "schoolmaster" quip in the same vein as your "schoolmarm" jab, to let you know I understood the chuckle.
As Srgt. Friday, (of Dragnet) says; Just the facts ma'am. I was not offended. Besides enjoying your chuckle, I also took your point. I had hoped my "schoolmaster" response, (with the puff & strut and sneer), indicated that.
I should learn that I am apparently lousy at witty humor, and stop trying. At least the witty part, I think I can be funny, (oh gawwddd, who was that spindly Lieutenant in the movie Good Morning Vietnam! that said that too. Oh no! I take it back!
With all due respect, this guy represents the view of a vast majority of climate change deniers. It's sad and the science, the data, is quite clear. I do not mean to say he represents his party, just climate change deniers.
I do respect somebody though who says they understand climate change, but want to challenge the sky is falling pronouncements from many people. While the sky, in fact, may be falling, the solutions are not that easy and it is not easy to change behavior. We all use oil in various ways and it's important we understand what sacrifices will truly have to be made to solve the problem.
I understand your point about this fellow representing a segment of like-minded folks Crankalicious. I just wonder how true his representation is. It could be worse than it looks.
I don't think this guy represents a typical denier. I think he represents a more dangerous type - a type that thinks they are clever and smart, and, superior, but their actions show otherwise.
I think your point about a difference between "deniers" and "pronouncement challengers" is a fair one, but one the Bandito stole away with while we were watching the yahoo contest.
I've made this very point before and it's largely gone ignored. There's a very minimal number of people with power in this country and we argue about minutiae while they laugh at us.
"I don't think this guy represents a typical denier. I think he represents a more dangerous type - a type that thinks they are clever and smart, and, superior, but their actions show otherwise."
GA, I think you hit the nail on the head. But the news a couple of days ago said that the glaciers and icebergs were thawing at a much faster rate than scientists thought they would when they released the statistics. It makes these deniers of any calibre dangerous to our survival.
This one is about Alaskan glaciers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … s-melting/
This one is about Antarctic glaciers: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/ar … ciers.html
And the list goes on if you google it.
I heard that news blurb too MixBeJabbers.
Even Trump officials agree climate change is a serious problem.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/business … index.html
Right now the Himalayas are a bigger direct impact issue, not that these are irrelevant. The Himalayas provide water to some of the biggest rivers in the world and a lot of the worlds agricultural produce (not just food but also fibers, etc for clothing) comes from these regions. It's also the largest ice cover on the planet other than the poles and the rate at which the glaciers are disappearing are really bad.
The problem with many people is that they cannot think a month ahead in their life, so it's virtually impossible for them to understand what "an increased rate of melt" refers to. They say glaciers are supposed to melt in the geological era we currently are in. No doubt about that, but the rate is the problem and shows that something has changed and we know what that something is.
Like you say, the list goes on and on. Papua New Guinea is already seeing the first case of climate refugees. This is something that the world has never seen before because changes were gradual and not within a generation.
I must have missed the part were the OP mentioned republicans, GOP, the right...
Hell, as impossible as it may seem, no one in the thread did.
Your purpleness seems a bit off lately.
Damn, nailed by that Island Warrior Girl again.
You are right, the word "Democrat" did appear once in my comment. But, the video did clearly identify the conflict to be a partisan one; an identified Democrat on one side, (John Kerry), and an identified Republican, (the Kentucky Congressman), on the other.
Also, I think it would be safe to say that the sides generally associated with the "it's real vs. It's fake" controversy are identified as Democrats for "yea" and the Republicans for "nay."
Then there is the part about "one guy making a rational fact-based argument," (obviously Kerry - the Democrat), and the other guy - the Republican is identified as a "dumbass."
Considering this, was my assumption and placement of the point in the partisan arena of Democrat vs. Republican such an unwarranted leap? Was my "purpleness" really so far off-base?
ps. Does the OP's link - clearly identifying Democrat and Republican, qualify as an inclusion of party in the OP?
I admit I introduced an assumption, but I plead for mercy based on the above rationalization.
That's fair, I think. I just tend to associate those who believe in science as being intelligent and those that question well-established science as being idiots, like flat-earthers, for instance. Or anti-vaxxers. Or in many instances like this one, climate change deniers.
Once again, it's one thing to argue about the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and what it is doing and another to question the motivations and solutions provided by people who say the sky is falling and we're going to become extinct in 20 years.
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
Since the 1980s (I remember them well) environmental scientists have been predicting global devastation if the world does nothing to prevent the rise in global temperature. Why then? Because enough time had elapsed since the beginning of the industrial revolution for the damage it began...
by mbuggieh 6 years ago
In May of 1950 President Harry Truman signed a bill---passed by Congress, that created the National Science Foundation. In signing the bill, Truman noted:"Throughout our history, scientists and scientific knowledge have contributed to our progress as a Nation. If you want to keep up that...
by Kathryn L Hill 68 minutes ago
justice for A L L ? ? ? - wondering. (... and If I see the name Trump I will really cringe. Understatement.)
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
I don't get Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented legislation to be considered by the US Senate. It was called the Green New Deal. Many Democrats came out in support of this legislation in the press. The leader of the Senate put it up for a vote. Democrats are...
by Stump Parrish 9 years ago
I believe he should resign. I didn't like the actions that brought him into the public eye but realize this proves he is human. His willingness to lie to the very people who elected him to office proves he is nothing more than a politician.I understand he is seeking help and I feel this has more to...
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
Well worth spending the 36 minutes to listen to the video. * http://www.truthandaction.org/founder-w … warming/2/"There’s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|