Have You Ever Wondered Why The GOP Is Anti-Climate Change?

Submitted by: normalfreak2 2 months ago in Science

TL;DR: Koch Brothers, Citizen's United, Corporate takeover of the GOP.

Excerpt from The New York Times: The campaign ad appeared during the presidential contest of 2008. Rapid-fire images of belching smokestacks and melting ice sheets were followed by a soothing narrator who praised a candidate who had stood up to President George W. Bush and “sounded the alarm on global warming.”

It was not made for a Democrat, but for Senator John McCain, who had just secured the Republican nomination.

It is difficult to reconcile the Republican Party of 2008 with the party of 2017, whose leader, President Trump, has called global warming a hoax, reversed environmental policies that Mr. McCain advocated on his run for the White House, and this past week announced that he would take the nation out of the Paris climate accord, which was to bind the globe in an effort to halt the planet’s warming.

There are 103 comments:
4
This company logo isn't written for the design practitioner (but plenty of other books do that). It is more geared towards a VP of Marketing/CMO crowd looking for ideas and new ways to share information.
0
Reply
4
And to get metal business cards for your startup is the best investment you can make, trust me.
0
Reply
4
Ever played Cards Against Humanity Online? Lots of fun!
0
Reply
4
The 3d intro maker is thought invoking and easy to read. The format of an interview style of reading made it really easy to follow with what's going on.
0
Reply
5
I'm glad to see the great detail here!.
192.168.0.1
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 10
0
Reply
Male 1
Exactly, that is what i always use to think as well. Now, I realize why the GOP is anti-climate change. You have explained it very brilliantly.

Dissertation Help 
0
Reply
Male 6
Very instructive post. We all need to think about this
192.168.0.1
0
Reply
Female 3
Bandar Ceme
This is great, you are good, i like your post and i still waiting our next post 
-1
Reply
Male 7,574
5
Reply
Male 3,766
It's simple.  the biggest polluters happen to be the greediest people.  They don't want to sacrifice their greed, nor pay more to keep their gravy train clean.
3
Reply
Male 246
monkwarrior Ambition is good. Greed is destructive. It is sad how many people can't tell the two apart.
0
Reply
Female 8
taxidriver
Found a lot of useful information!
192.168.1.1
0
Reply
Male 440
taxidriver Ambition doesn't come at the expense of others. When your 'ambition' comes from the utter subjugation of working people the world around, you're just greedy. Michael Jordan is an ambitious person. The Walfuck family is just greedy. Stupid fucking trolls
1
Reply
Male 9,087
thething911 Hasn't Michael Jordan made most of his millions off the Air Jordan line with Nike which is produced in third world countries by near slave labor in deplorable conditions?
0
Reply
Male 39,759
monkwarrior And greed has no race, gender, religion or political affiliations. It is always 'equal opportunity' eh?

If it did split entirely on Dem/Repub lines? It would be a lot more obvious, eh? 
-3
Reply
Male 3,766
5cats i personally doubt it's split along political alegience, tbh. it's more along a line of their desires, like people who do evil and selfishness gradually gather together and do evil things, and those who do good and selflessness gather together gradually to do good things.

What's sad, is that politics is so cutthroat and petty now that it's like only the ones who are most selfish can get in.  Selfless people might not even make it into the halls of power, being barred, mocked, or repulsed by what it contains.  Those who make it, no doubt despise its corruption too.
2
Reply
Male 2,887
monkwarrior this we can agree upon my friend
0
Reply
Male 3,766
kalron27 theres always common ground somewhere.  i think we need some level of law against greed.  It's getting completely ridiculous and out of control world-wide, that it's such a shame to see humankind being herded that way into a tiny box, when it's capable of so much more..
1
Reply
Male 606
monkwarrior I agree.
1
Reply
Male 39,247
No, I have never wondered why the GOP is not interested in stopping climate change. 
The answer is too obvious to wonder about.
.
.
.
M O N E Y
0
Reply
Male 2,887
Gerry1of1 ^this...

...doesn't help when the Secretary of State is the (questionable) ex-CEO of Exxon...
1
Reply
Male 39,759
Paris: Nothingburger that costs trillions of dollars:

Facts are important things.
-4
Reply
Male 2,716
5cats the howard stern show a few weeks ago played this clip of the dozens of times the phrase nothing burger was said on foxnews.. i had never heard this phase before recently whats up with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybBi3JsV5Eo 
about 6minutes in. hilarious
0
Reply
Male 3,982
rumham That was fun. Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 3,982
5cats It's interesting that you state "facts are important things" immediately after publishing that chart--because so far as I can determine, that's the most inaccurate chart published anywhere about the Paris Climate Agreement. It first appeared on the website "Watts Up With That," a website run by a former TV weatherman that is notorious for its misinformation.

This chart of yours claims that the impact of the agreement would be just 0.05 deg C by 2100, which of course makes the whole effort seem like a farce.

But every estimate of the agreement's effects that has been made by actual scientists shows that the agreement would have a lot more impact than that. While it's certainly true that the voluntary targets nations' have provided to date won't keep the world below the ultimate goal of limiting climate change to 2 deg C or less, the agreement makes a good start. The best estimates by scientists show that with the agreement's existing member pledges, temperatures will rise around 2.7 deg C by 2100, versus 3.6 deg C without it. That's a difference of 0.9 deg C (or 1.6 deg F). In terms of global warming, that's a significant reduction.



Bottom line: Climate scientists are estimating that, even as a first step, the agreement is likely to make a difference of 0.9 deg C. A former TV meteorologist with an axe to grind, however, puts the number 0.05 degrees. Predictably, you went with the latter rather than the former.

Yes, facts are important things.
2
Reply
Female 8
0
Reply
Male 246
5cats It doesn't solve everything in one step so don't try at all. (sarcasm)
2
Reply
Male 39,759
taxidriver That's not what I said and you know it.
Taking steps for everyone to lower pollution of all kinds = good.
Taxing one group Trillions while allowing other groups to keep doubling pollutions for free = bad.
Paris is the second option, it would do nothing even if fully implemented, which will simply never happen. May as well wish for flying pigs, that is much more likely than Paris Goals being met, ever.
-1
Reply
Male 3,982
5cats What Taxidriver wrote is precisely what your message has been throughout this entire thread: The Paris Agreement doesn't solve everything in one step so don't try at all.

Also: Please explain where in the Paris Agreement there is even the suggestion that any one group should be taxed trillions of dollars.
1
Reply
Male 7,574
squrlz4ever He can't, but it's true in his head and/or he heard it from some blogger so that's as good as a fact.
1
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 Fucking liar. I said before and say now: Paris is IMPOSSIBLE it will NEVER HAPPEN.
Show me how that is wrong or go fuck yourselves. China #1 and India #3 have exemptions, they WILL DOUBLE their output, not cut it at all! But 'the plan' is based on each nation cutting... so by design it will fail.
(Actually it is 4x their output by the Paris deadline, but that's minor...)

EVEN IF it met the impossible goals? IT WOULD NOT MATTER. That TINY bit of warming will not hurt anyone or anything. Those TRILLIONS of dollars would go to the very rich to make them richer, and the poor would become poorer. PERIOD.

So stop with the lies and deal with the words I actually say. Fucking too much for you eh? Cowards, every one of you.
0
Reply
Male 364
5cats Yes, everybody must remain at third-world-level because then we can continue our level of pollution! That's just fair!!! Not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

You're setting impossible goals in order to have an excuse to just give up. Paris is setting very ambitious goals in order to at least walk along the path that needs to be taken. You essentially say that if we raise the temperature by 2.8 instead of 2.7 °C or 2.0 °C, we might as well have raised it by 3.7 °C ... which is BS.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert So it is OK for #1 and #3 to DOUBLE their emissions, and #2  and #4 (the EU) should pay them to double it. That will make the world cleaner? By bankrupting half the economic output of the world?

And No, Paris never once claims it will lower temperatures by -1.7C if implemented, that's bullshit for 2 reasons:

1. It simply never says that. It claims at most about 0.2C reduction over 100 years IF ALL NATIONS follow it and reduce (never increase) emissions.
2. It will happen in 100 years, which is bullshit. That's not science that's propaganda.

The world will not stall its growth for 100 years based on Paris, that's a fact even you cannot deny! You even demand growth!!! Which would make Paris invalid... you see that yes? Requiring zero growth to succeed, then allowing growth means it will NOT succeed. You cannot disagree with that.
0
Reply
Male 364
5cats Should we act upon the hope that somebody would destroy the planet anyway?

Shall everybody else remain at ox cart level so we can keep the coal runners? Should we conquer China to stop their economic growth?

We can't sell that, and you wouldn't buy that.

OTOH we can chose weather the developing countries will emit twice as much as today, or four times, by developing the technology to use less energy for the same prosperity.


Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

Look at who emits most CO2, and who emits most CO2 per head, too. Someone can lower their emissions without losing anything but the cough ... and that cool coal runner his neighbors keep complaining about.



0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert We should destroy our economy and our culture so the Chinese and India can rule the world? Fuck that idea!
We should do this based on the 'models' which have ALL proven wrong so far, based on the claim that in 80+ years it MIGHT happen?

There is NO science to say that +4C over 1 century will be anything but beneficial! And NO science to show it will happen either. The current rate is for 1.3C, this is an indisputable fact. 
I posted a study proving that plants are thriving with "AGW CO2" all over the world, the opposite of AGW Theory btw...

Lower our emissions? Canada's economy will literally be destroyed if we "meet our Paris goals". It will never happen, and China AND India will each DOUBLE their CO2 output, not reduce it. These are facts, deal with reality please!

If technology will save us all? It will come from the PRIVATE sector like it ALWAYS HAS for the past 2000+ years. You think Communist China or India will develop new technology? They only make things others have invented...

But thanks for being polite! I appreciate that :-)

0
Reply
Male 3,982
5cats Classic diversion. I politely asked you to explain where in the Paris Agreement there is even the suggestion that any one group should be taxed trillions of dollars. Because, you know, those are words you actually said.

You failed to do so and are trying to hide that failure by indignant ranting and name-calling.
0
Reply
Male 39,247
5cats Paris is the start, not the end solution
2
Reply
Male 39,759
Gerry1of1 I was told Paris was the final solution...
Our "last chance" they kept telling us. Just like Kyoto was our last chance, and Bern... a series of last chances!
-1
Reply
Male 1
5cats  aah..... the one plot which foils all the liberal shenanigans....well done Sir.  I wish my University would have granted me my PhD with a single plot like this one. Oh but what do I know, 8 years in the field (PhD and postdoc) with a paltry return of some peer reviewed journal articles and a lower than high school teacher salary. I am, but just an alarmist.
1
Reply
Male 39,759
javedbhaisorele Welcome to IAB, enjoy your logical fallacies :-)
http://imgur.com/8wTxkJu
-1
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats So your argument is they didn't go far enough?  I agree!
2
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 "Far enough" = back to the stone age. That is the ultimate goal of AGW Alarmists it seems to me.
Not for themselves of course!! Only for OTHERS. 
They'll still fly private jets around the world on the taxpayer dime to 'discuss lowering' something that is happening naturally. ie: demand the impossible, then punish people when the impossible goal is not met.
-4
Reply
Male 364
5cats I have a mental picture. Left side: Neanderthals around smoking fire in front of cave. Middle: Driver of a coal runner. Right side: Small car, no smoke. The driver of the coal runner points at the small car and yells "I don't want that, that would be stone age!!!"
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert What car makes no pollution? It has yet to be invented. Why would the middle one point to the future and say he doesn't want that? You think the Paris Accord will suddenly create pollution-free cars? If only Trump would let trillions be drained out of America's economy and into the hands of despots and corrupt officials? The world would be a better place with One Central Government running it all?

The AGW side wants to return to the past, even if it destroys the economy of half the world. Your example is nonsense, sorry.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
5cats Keep in mind: the "goals" of Paris were NEVER GOING TO BE MET. Not by any nation larger than Montenegro. There were no penalties, no limits of increases, nothing at all. China and India were already planning to double and then re-double their CO2 and other pollution outputs, Paris did not change that at all. They would still do so, making it utterly impossible for the goals to even come close.

It was never intended to fight "climate change" at all. It is flat-out "redistribution of wealth".
-4
Reply
Male 19
5cats Just 1 example of redistribution of wealth -  In 1852, from just one single state in India, the State of Bengal (which now comprises of West Bengal, India and the whole of Bangladesh), The British TOOK 30,000,000 gold mohurs.  A gold mohur, aka 1 tola, weighs 10.95 gms.  In today's value, that is about USD 14 Billion;  It was worth a heck of a lot more back then vis-a-vis purchasing power.  That was just one state and one year only.  They had the whole of India to loot for 300+ years.  

A little wealth redistribution is justified.    

If you wonder what that might have to do with Canada or the USA, did you consider where the money came from for the British to take over most of the planet?  To develop and invest Canada and USA, when there were only the natives here?  And at what cost to the people of India?  That was seed money for the countries that don't remember who paid the price for their development.  
1
Reply
Male 39,759
kasuko That's called operating a mine. Mining is not "wealth redistribution" it is wealth creation. The miners got paid, the local and other governments took their cut, it's called "normal".

The notion that what happened hundreds of years ago should be "paid back" in modern money is puerile nonsense. It does not justify taking money from innocent common people and giving it to billionaires today.

I'm here in Canada. Most of Canada was 'taken' from some tribe or another. And they had, in turn, taken it from a former tribe too. And so on back to the ice age.
EVERY inch of arable land on the planet was taken by force from someone else. Are we going to give it all back to the Neanderthals or something? Just how far back do we go for your 'justice'? 
-1
Reply
Male 19
5cats Please allow me to clarify - there were no gold mines in the state of Bengal.  The worlds biggest gold mine (at that time), much further south of Bengal covering two states in the South,  which was in operation for over a 1000 years prior to the arrival of the British in 1647 was completely raided and emptied out by 1850.  As were the worlds ONLY diamond mine - at that time.   What they took form Bengal was wealth, accumulated over 100's of generations, from the people - looting the treasuries of the Kings, temple vaults, taxes, etc. 

What was done several 100 years ago, especially during the colonial past, is the primary cause of poverty in most of the modern world.  Make no mistake about it.  You can try to deny it all you want, however the fact cannot be altered.  Wealth was looted from each and every colony, existing industries were destroyed to create markets for British industrial output.  Eg.  During the British rule, the thumbs of over 20,000 Indian craftsmen were severed to prevent them from using the loom to make cloth - no mining there.  The Indian people were arrested for picking salt from their own backyard so that British salt could be sold to them.  The Western world is rich ONLY as a result of looted wealth which was transferred to build their economies at the cost of millions of innocent common people from those lands.  
0
Reply
Male 39,759
kasuko Again, so? Military violence has been going on since caveman times. Using further violence to "re-redistribute" this wealth is nonsense. 

I don't deny anything except the stupidity of your solution. Destroy one prosperous economy to enrich a vile and corrupt economy and culture? No thanks.
-1
Reply
Male 19
5cats I cannot stoop down to personal insults and attacks on the integrity of other nations.   Congrats on your "win".  
0
Reply
Male 39,759
kasuko Lolz, keep your delusions, I could not care less even if I tried to.

Unless you think Saudi Arabia, China and others are paragons of humanity and virtue? Role models for all nations to follow? Then you must admit there's a hell of a lot of really shitty governments out there... and they will be the ones raking in the billions, and their own impoverished people will get exactly squat.
0
Reply
Male 3,806
They are anti-climate change?
0
Reply
Male 7,574
trimble Oh you and your play on words. =)
0
Reply
Male 3,806
normalfreak2 I know, it's pretty bad.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
trimble I thought AGW was opposed to Climate Change? And the Skeptics were trying to burn the Earth to a crisp?
Now we're opposed to Climate Change... and the AGW are endorsing it?? 
I'm so confused! (lmao)

Just more double-speak straight from the DNC Talking Points Bulletin.
-1
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats No only in your self delusional mind are AGW folks are anti climate change.  I'm going to make this easy for you.  AGW = Humans are a factor in the rising of recent Temperatures.  AKA the last 200 years.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 That is Skepiticism. And I was expounding on trimble's joke you humourless moron...
I know you have trouble with big words, here you go:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expounding
-1
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats 

I already started going through some of these studies.  So far I've gone through 12 of those.  Completely unrelated to AGW.  They talk about Chinese Agriculture, there's a couple of studies on how the temperatures changed due to Volcanoe's going off.  I did find 2 studies that stated AGW may be caused by something else.  None of the other studies make the AGW doesn't claims that I've read thus far.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 Yes, they show how the Earth has OTHER reasons for warming or cooling. Natural ones.
They show how it has been warmer before, with NO human actions involved.
They show that the science is NOT "settled" but in fact real science continues to be done on various parts of climate research.
They show cycles going back 2,000 - 10,000 years or longer, natural ones, not human-caused.

Each one isn't "proof" of anything, they are studies, research and data. What we interpret that to mean is up to us.
If you can look at a dataset that shows it was warmer in the past, and claim it proves it has NEVER been warmer than today? Go for it! :-)
0
Reply
Male 364
5cats The earth warms and cools slowly or fast, where fast change usually means extinction events for the life on it. And now it's warming faster than ever ... but that's OK, we want to be extinct! Not.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert It is not "faster than ever" because there has been a 20+ year "pause. It was predicted to be fast, but in fact ALL the predictions have been proven wrong.

And other brief warming trends have existed, like under 100 years, and everything survived. In fact life flourished! Now COLD trends have wiped out plenty over that short a time, in the past.

One 'spike' in the (iirc) 12th century saw temps rise +4.4C in under 30 years... nothing went extinct, and humans did not cause it. So again, deal with reality and facts please.
0
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats Once again, no one that supports AGW is stating the EARTH was never warmer in the past.  You are creating a debate where there is none.  Keep setting up those strawmans!
2
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 Hockey Stick. Case closed.
Yes AGW proponents have said hundreds of times, thousands even, that NEVER in Earth's post ice-age history has it been warmer. They'll grudgingly allow that it was in Dinosaur days... maybe.
So again, exactly like your bullshit claim that "no one ever said the science is settled"? You spout lies.

Questions: 1. How can the past few years be "the highest temperatures ever recorded" if it was warmer in the past?
2. Wouldn't it utterly defeat the entire basis of AGW theory if 2000 years ago (for one example) it was warmer than today and that was NOT caused at all by human actions? 
-2
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats "AGW proponents have said hundreds of times, thousands even, that NEVER in Earth's post ice-age history has it been warmer."
Similarly, there are plenty of people who state, without any actual evidence, that there is no human contribution at all to warming. I think it's reasonable to assume that both extremes of opinion are wrong and should be ignored as meaningless noise. We should continue to investigate, and we should invest in research to reduce the possible human contribution not only because it may save our children (and their children, etc., down the line) from potentially dangerous effects of excess warming, but also because that possible warming effect is due to the huge amount of pollutants we're pumping into our environment, poisoning ourselves in the process even if we're not warming the planet.
2
Reply
Male 364
broizfam We should be in a cooling phase according to the cycles the "sceptics" like to refer to, so the fact that it's getting warmer is man-made - as long as you don't count possibilities like "we are living in a Matrix and our creators are just messing with us, but if we refuse to comply, they will just take it back and make it all well".
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert The predicted cooling starts in the next 2-3 years. Please stick to the facts, thx.

We are in a "pause" with only tiny amounts of warming, lasting the past 20 years. Almost every pro-AGW person admits this. The warming in this time is exactly what Skeptic Theory predicted, and about 1/3 of what AGW predicted and entirely outside of the MOE for their models. For 20 years now...
0
Reply
Male 39,759
broizfam I've never actually seen anyone say zero human effect. Never.
I have seen the originators of AGW saying it is 100% human and that there was NEVER warmer times. And hundreds of other TOP AGW supporters.
If this was poker? I'd have a full house (kings and aces) and you'd have Jack-high...

Furthermore: it has NEVER been shown how even +5C (which is an insanely high estimate!) over 100 years is harmful! Never once. Why would it be if it has been that warm many times in the past?
Every 'warm period' in the past was prosperous and all life flourished. Why would this time be the opposite?

No, no further investigations required: the science is settled. Haven't you been paying attention? Only Skeptics want 'more research' and they are always wrong, right?


-2
Reply
Male 364
5cats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert one or more large meteor impact events, massive volcanism
Nice try... and that took longer than 100 years I guarantee it.
0
Reply
Male 364
5cats Yes, if I calculate our speed against the volcano, I get way-less-than-1000 years on our side and a million years on the volcano side. Being faster isn't associated with having time to adapt.

The meteorite at Chicxulub caused long-lasting devastation and hot debris across the world, releasing large amount of sulfur from the gypsum and igniting woods all around the world - a combination known to cause unfavorable climate changes. Unfortunately that wasn't everything: If you hit a ball, the impact will transfer to the other side - where the Indian Ghat was there crossing a super volcano - or it was about to be created. That alone already was decreasing the number of dinosaurs, but it being accelerated didn't help.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
7eggert Yes... and? You agree with me? Cool!

Not ALL life was extinguished, and humans (or what would someday become humans) survived a freaking massive meteor strike... same for that super-volcano (it was really huge!).

MY CLAIM that a +5C warming has NEVER harmed anything remains true. Period. And that is the maximum AGW theory predicts over a fucking century, not 1 year like the meteor or volcano...
0
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats No, the science is not "absolutely settled". Not by a longshot. Yes, warm periods in the past have caused life to flourish. Some of it, anyway. The odds of it having caused "all" life to flourish is actually pretty poor. There have been numerous mass extinctions in the past and, quite likely, not only were some probably due to climate change (both warming and cooling), many probably occurred that we don't even know about. Small changes in our environment can lead to big changes in our lives. If some small change leads, for instance, to an abundance of birds that eat bees we could lose a large portion of the main source of pollination. Flowering plants could then start to die off. Bugs and animals that live off the plants then start to die off and the creatures that depend on them start to die. Eventually these things come to an equilibrium but how much might we lose first because of it? I don't know. You don't know. The scientists don't even know! No, the science absolutely is not settled. Not a fucking chance. If that's what you call a full house, stay away from the casino!
0
Reply
Male 39,759
broizfam You've entirely missed my point, got it ass-backwards it seems.
ONLY the Pro-AGW side says 'the science is settled' and that NO further research OR discussion is needed. Act now they tell us, no need for ANY more information!

And you've ignored my point that not one study shows a +5C rise will harm anything. 
My Point: It HAS been that warm before, and when that happened? ALL life flourished! Again I ask: why would it be any different this time? Kings over aces dude, you got squat.
0
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats Actually read my comment.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
broizfam You say my points aren't valid, that "my hand" is not strong... after you practically repeat every word I said...
It isn't my reading that needs work here, it is your thinking or writing.
And you skipped over a ton of stuff, then claimed victory? Sorry, not worth shit.
0
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats I claimed victory? What the hell are you reading? I made some scientifically valid points which you simply ignore since they don't support your belief. I understand that, actually, but I claimed victory? Do you really think it's appropriate to just make that shit up? And, no, I didn't say your hand isn't strong but it sure as hell isn't as strong as a full house! We really don't know what effect a few degrees would make in the long run for the type of life we've developed. Also, again, even if the warming alone doesn't cause major problems, we've already seen some real damaging effects from the environmental pollution caused by the human activities that theoretically cause that warming. So even if your against changing what we do because you don't believe in the possibility of future warming that will endanger our ancestors, how about changing what we do to reduce the pollution that's poisoning us right now?
0
Reply
Male 39,759
broizfam Your points are nearly identical to mine, yet you ended by claiming my "hand was weak"?
Yes, we DO KNOW that Nature adapts easily to +5C over 100 or 1000 years because it has happened hundreds of times!!
Yes, a "few degrees" causes change... EVERYTHING CAUSES CHANGE! ALL CHANGE IS CHANGE!!! Can I shout that louder? Did you hear it yet? THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES! ALWAYS FOR 4 BILLION YEARS IN A ROW without a single fucking human involved...
4 fucking BILLION YEARS in a fucking row.... and YOU SAY we humans can stop ALL CHANGE by destroying our economies? No! Just no! We cannot "stop it" ok? Change WILL HAPPEN and we cannot stop it. Unless it was 100% human caused, then maybe? But IT IS NOT and therefor all our efforts are HUBRIS. We invite MORE disaster on ourselves in this insane idea that WE CONTROL NATURE. Ok? See it now?

If we cannot adapt better than a lemming? We don't deserve to be here. Fact. Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about YOU ok?
0
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats You quote me saying that your "hand was weak". Look back - your "quote" is misquoted. Yes nature adapts to changes in temperature, but it may change in ways that are not advantageous to us and our descendants. Did you hear that yet? I've never said we can stop all change. That's because I recognize that we are likely not the creators of all the change. I have said that we can probably mitigate our contribution to it and that that may well be to our benefit. You consistently misapply your assumptions of what I mean as being actual quotes of what I've said and you are almost always wrong in doing so.
I notice you had nothing to say about my point of how we're poisoning ourselves. Do you deny that, too?
0
Reply
Male 39,759
broizfam Paris is not about "adapting" it is about STOPPING ALL CHANGE.
ok?
Nothing else. Other than wealth redistribution of course.
Same for AGW.
If you deny humans can stop all change? YOU are a Skeptic too! Welcome to the club, we have cookies!

I have never once denied humans play a role in "global climate change". Never. 1%? 5%? Maybe 10%? But for fuck's sake NOT 100%!!! If it was 100%? Then NO CHANGE EVER in the past would have happened, ok?

However? AGW and Paris are based on humans being 100% responsible for ALL climate change. All of it. If not? Then multiply the costs by the % that is natural: trillions become tens of trillions... it is insane to try to fight natural changes, adapt or perish. Fighting Mother Nature = perish.

Mitigate? Your side has not even shown that a warmer climate IS BAD! Why mitigate something that may well be a benefit?? Isn't that suicidally stupid?
0
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats Could be a benefit. Likely depends on 1) how far it goes and 2) how toxic we make our environment in the process. I've always said it needs more study. Have you forgotten that or is it just that it's better to ignore that so you can make your point? And still no comment on how we're polluting ourselves? I guess that would just weaken your warming argument so it's better to simply ignore that, too.
0
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats Who (WHICH AGW proponent) specifically is stating the Earth has never been warmer in the history of the planet?  Go ahead.....and I'll show you someone that no one takes seriously.
1
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 Hockey Stick, Mann and Gore. I told you already.
-1
Reply
Male 7,574
5cats Michael Mann DOES NOT state the Earth has never been warmer.  I just heard him in an interview state that he is fully aware that the Earth has been warmer.  You are so full of crap.
0
Reply
Male 39,759
normalfreak2 Then he has become a Skeptic, you should burn him at the stake at once!!

IF the Earth was warmer naturally AND we all survived quite nicely? WHY is the same warmth suddenly THE APOCALYPSE and going to literally end all life on Earth? As those supporting AGW have been telling us from the start? (or at least wipe out the human race and half the animals... they are always quite vague in their Doomsday scenarios...)
-1
Reply
Male 567
Could John McCain have won in 2008 if he chose a different running mate? Or was Obama already a shoe in at that time?
0
Reply
Male 39,759
fuad119 Obama was a shoe-in. Of course they also thought Hillary was a shoe-in, both in 2008 and 2016, lolz!
McCain is about as liberal as a Repub can get, but the Dems still hated him, of course! It was hard to attack him though, so ANY vice-prez nominee would have been put through the meatgrinder exactly the same way as Palin was.
-1
Reply
Male 6,000
5cats I actually quite liked McCain. But then the Republican party gave him so insanely much shit for thinking sensibly and in favor of the American people instead of simply toeing the party line and being purely anti-anything  the Democrats wanted, even if it made sense, that he backed off and became, or at least, presented himself as, a pure "straight-and-true" Republican. He at least appeared to stop putting the American people first. I'm not sure that that's really the case. I have a feeling he's just putting on a show for the party leaders so he maintains their support. If the old McCain had been running against Clinton and Trump I'd probably have voted for him.
0
Reply
Male 7,574
fuad119 I think so yes.
0
Reply
Male 8,274
-2
Reply
Male 39,759
megrendel Yup, that covers it.
Is that his Nobel peace Prize on his jacket? Lolz!
Because not one Democrat owns stocks in 'bad companies' eh? Not one!! They are the paragons of morality and virtue!
-1
Reply
Male 1,365
5cats The difference is Republicans own businesses to make money and Democrats bilk the public to make money.  Anyone that denies EITHER side isn't in it for the money is lying to themselves.
-2
Reply
Male 39,759
squidbush lolz! Too true!
Evil Republicans want to run businesses to make money, and pure & good Democrats want the Government (themselves of course) to take all that money away "for the good of humankind"... of course!
0
Reply