Dr. Benjamin Carson

[ToadallyAwesome]

[quote name='cfootball1']If the intention is to disprove someones argument, then of course i'm going to throw your logic right back at you. Then suddenly were back to where we came from, which is no real concrete evidence for man made climate change whatsoever because we have no documentation of weather patterns over the past billions of years. And if you're a believer in evolution, and that everything came from nothing. Then the notion of mere fluctuation in weather doesn't sound as outlandish in comparison. Wrap your head around a billion years for a moment. And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.[/QUOTE]

#1 You can literally watch evolution occur within viruses because of the short life spans and seeing many generations quickly. There is no need for any belief here.

#2 Evolution has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory and DOES NOT try to answer the question of how the universe was created. Common misunderstanding of those not in science/never bother to read things.

#3 Human do have the power to destroy everything in a short amount of time. Disregard Nukes and think back to CFCs (chlorofluorocabrons), which are used for "Freon" and the ozone layer. Everyone loved them but it turns out that it was a catalysts for breaking up ozone (O3). If we didn't accidentally catch that in time we would have wiped ourselves out. No joke. It was pretty close. Huge environmental disaster. Good thing we had people doing some ozone research.

 

[Cantatus]

[quote name='The Crotch']Hey, blame this ing asshole.

that guy.[/QUOTE]

I always just figured it was because so many people would take a cold season as proof that global warming must not be occurring. Perhaps "global climate change" sounds "less severe" in his eyes, but it's also probably a way of phrasing it that doesn't make it so easily dismissible by those who don't understand the theory.

[quote name='dohdough']I'm guessing that there's an extended clip where they discussed global warming while talking about the snow storm from the other week, hence the global warming joke. But, you know...it's easier to post a an out-of-context video clip than to actually make your own argument. It's a "libertarian" thing.[/QUOTE]

If I recall, they were talking about the storms prior to talking about the asteroid, yes. But anyways, the title to the video is completely inaccurate regardless. She doesn't "blame" global warming, she poses a question, which, you know, is sort of a big part of science, and Bill Nye corrects her anyways. Though, really, I think she was just trying to force a segue.

 

[Cantatus]

[quote name='cfootball1'] And tell me we have the power for such destruction of our planet in a small small negligible fraction of the time.[/QUOTE]

There's a pretty big difference between the "destruction of our planet" and making our planet less hospitable. I don't think I've yet to hear a scientist claim we're going to literally destroy our planet. It's been here for billions of years before us and wouldn't have any problems surviving long after we're gone. Global Warming is talking about something much more limited and at the same time perhaps just as impactful as far as we're concerned.

When you consider how fragile our ecosystem is, it isn't as hard to understand that we could have a pretty negative impact on it. There has already been evidence of this, albeit on much smaller and more temporary levels: holes in the ozone, the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, the nuclear testing on the Bikini Islands. Hell, people don't seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around the theory regarding Nuclear Winter, and that's something that'd occur much faster than global climate change.

To be honest, I tend to be surprised when I hear a Christian (in general) make an argument against something like this. I've often heard the argument that part of the evidence of a creator is how perfectly nature fits together, how had something with our environment formed just a little differently, life on this planet likely wouldn't exist. It's a beautiful thought, in my opinion, but it's also something that signifies fragility.

Though, frankly, I think the global climate change debate is pretty meaningless and unnecessary.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='Cantatus']I always just figured it was because so many people would take a cold season as proof that global warming must not be occurring. Perhaps "global climate change" sounds "less severe" in his eyes, but it's also probably a way of phrasing it that doesn't make it so easily dismissible by those who don't understand the theory.[/QUOTE]
Luntz is basically THE conservative wordsmith of the current political era from the Atwater school of thought in which you can say anything you want as long as you word it correctly. When you hear about how conservatives have a "messaging" problem and not an "issues" problem, this is the guy that the RNC and it's affiliates are calling for new buzzwords to feed to the ignorant.

I don't know how old you are, but back in those days, global warming was a big ing deal. There was a huge hole in the ozone layer and they were even making movies that cynically joked about it. It was so bad that there were huge campaigns against using CFC's. I think what you're missing is that Luntz didn't do it to educate the masses, but to reframe it in a way that would turn global warming into a political non-issue at the time instead of making it harder to dismiss as people in denial are going to dismiss any evidence anyways.

If anything, this shows how stupid the "left" is for buying into and using right-wing framing. Hell, the term "entitlements" to describe social services is a relative newcomer in the political lexicon. It's ing bonkers.