Does Congressman Dumbass Represent Climate Change Deniers in America?

1. 80

   crankaliciousposted 6 years ago

   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

   replyreport
   1. 68

      IslandBitesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Watched the video 10 minutes ago. SMH

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         It's amazing, isn't it? Accusing Kerry of pretending to be a scientist because he has a political science degree.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Sadly, I believe Congressman Dumbass is a reflection of a certain segment of people who have chosen corporate -bought politics over knowledge.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I believe that too. And trying to argue with somebody who is that stupid is virtually impossible.

         replyreport
   3. 94

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      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."

      replyreport
      1. 80

         crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I figured the applause was probably for Kerry.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You may be right, and I hope you are, but the applause began after Dumbass smarted out about something. It is hard to tell.

            replyreport
2. 86

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   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.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And.....here comes GA to be the disapproving  schoolmarm. ;-)
      
      Of course there are dumbasses everywhere. Duh.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         "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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               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!
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, you're fine and I did laugh at your schoolmaster comment.  I just wanted to be sure you knew I was teasing you.

                  replyreport
   2. 80

      crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      GA,
      
      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.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
         2. 94

            MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            "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.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I heard that news blurb too MixBeJabbers.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Even Trump officials agree climate change is a serious problem.
                  
                  https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/business … index.html

                  replyreport
            2. 78

               lobobrandonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
   3. 68

      IslandBitesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            crankaliciousposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport