Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This overriding selfishness, this outright hostility towards the thought that anyone on this planet would have to change their indulgent and consumptive lifestyle to produce less pollution is, in my opinion, one of the largest drivers of the denialist camp. They fear, first and foremost, they will have to make some kind of sacrifice, which leaves them outraged and questioning the very validity of basic science.
I'm good with things like raising the CAFE ratings. I drive one of the highest rated green cars. I think solar is pretty cool and I hope we can get things like battery lifespans increased so that it becomes a better option. When it comes to things like cap and trade or a carbon tax in general that is nothing more than a scam. If it's bad, it's bad, it's not O.K. because it's being taxed.
I'm good with things like raising the CAFE ratings. I drive one of the highest rated green cars. I think solar is pretty cool and I hope we can get things like battery lifespans increased so that it becomes a better option. When it comes to things like cap and trade or a carbon tax in general that is nothing more than a scam. If it's bad, it's bad, it's not O.K. because it's being taxed.
I don't disagree with you, in fact, most proponents of green energy are opposed to cap and trade as well. When cap and trade was first practiced in Europe (2005) the results were that pollution, in some instances, actually increased. The best case scenario since then is a paltry 8% drop in emissions, while some estimate that impact has been non existent.
The problem with any scheme that involves the transfer of any commodity with a financial implication is that man will find a way to game the system and make money from it. I don't believe cap and trade will work, and if you ask those in favor of green energy what they think, most don't agree with it either. That is likely why little, if any, progress has been made in this country towards reducing emissions.
Al Gore ought to visit the areas of the country hit by frigid temperatures and ice storms where the people may not have electric power until the end of the week and remind those people spending their Christmas in the cold and dark about the dangers of global warming.
I don't disagree with you, in fact, most proponents of green energy are opposed to cap and trade as well. When cap and trade was first practiced in Europe (2005) the results were that pollution, in some instances, actually increased. The best case scenario since then is a paltry 8% drop in emissions, while some estimate that impact has been non existent.
The problem with any scheme that involves the transfer of any commodity with a financial implication is that man will find a way to game the system and make money from it. I don't believe cap and trade will work, and if you ask those in favor of green energy what they think, most don't agree with it either. That is likely why little, if any, progress has been made in this country towards reducing emissions.
It is. When you say "those in favor" you are generalizing. There are many arguing for things like cap and trade and a carbon tax. Those people are indeed causing a dismissal of the idea in general.
The president has called for a carbon tax. So when he speaks about conservation in general what everyone is going to hear is "carbon tax".
That might be the case, but a physicist is not studying climate change, and if he were, his opinion is an anomaly amongst the scientific consensus.
The irony is a denialist suddenly believes in science and is using someone with a scientific background to make their case.
There are hundreds of scientists who recognize that the climate has always changed. Because they don't believe that man is responsible doesn't make them deniers - it makes them scientists.
Any scientist who takes an absolute position on anything isn't much of a scientist. Question everything.
It is. When you say "those in favor" you are generalizing. There are many arguing for things like cap and trade and a carbon tax. Those people are indeed causing a dismissal of the idea in general.
The president has called for a carbon tax. So when he speaks about conservation in general what everyone is going to hear is "carbon tax".
Well, the great dilemma is how to reduce emissions, is it not? Sadly, in this country, only 19% of people who consider themselves conservative admit they believe in climate change/science.
It's already an uphill struggle, made alot harder by Republicans (bought and paid for) and their scientifically illiterate voting base, who are arguing against the validity of science rather than trying to find a solution.
There are hundreds of scientists who recognize that the climate has always changed. Because they don't believe that man is responsible doesn't make them deniers - it makes them scientists.
Any scientist who takes an absolute position on anything isn't much of a scientist. Question everything.
No, just about every scientist on earth realizes the climate has always changed. Just because you refuse to understand, or admit, that mankind is bringing about many of the changes in the climate the earth is your viewpoint, not shared by those with any knowledge of basic science.
The great thing about science is that repeated study can bring about provable theories that are backed basic laws.
Well, the great dilemma is how to reduce emissions, is it not? Sadly, in this country, only 19% of people who consider themselves conservative admit they believe in climate change/science.
There is the problem. I do not believe anything is going on that hasn't naturally gone on for millions of years but I believe we should work on reducing emissions all the same. You do not have to make wild accusations to get people to get on board with reducing emissions. If anything it only works against you.
Quote:
It's already an uphill struggle, made alot harder by Republicans (bought and paid for) and their scientifically illiterate voting base, who are arguing against the validity of science rather than trying to find a solution.
There you go, that's the way to get people to see your point of view. Call them names. Works great. (that's sarcasm if it missed you)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
